pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.26042 · v1 · pith:AJEP5DNTnew · submitted 2026-06-24 · ⚛️ physics.geo-ph · astro-ph.EP· physics.flu-dyn

Paleomagnetic signatures of core-mantle interactions inferred from top-heavy thermochemical geodynamo simulations

Souvik Naskar , Jonathan E. Mound , Christopher J. Davies , Hannah F. Rogers , Stephen J. Mason , Andrew T. Clarke This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 19:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.geo-ph astro-ph.EPphysics.flu-dyn
keywords geodynamopaleomagnetismcore-mantle interactionsthermochemical convectioninclination anomalyheterogeneous heat fluxgeomagnetic fieldchemical buoyancy
0
0 comments X

The pith

Simulations with heterogeneous outer boundary heat flux match observed longitudinal variations in geomagnetic inclination anomaly, unlike homogeneous cases.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper runs top-heavy thermochemical geodynamo simulations that vary the relative strength of thermal and chemical buoyancy to see what signatures appear in the time-averaged magnetic field. When these runs are compared against paleomagnetic field models spanning centuries to tens of thousands of years, spatially averaged measures of morphology and variability fail to separate different driving strengths or boundary conditions. Longitudinal variations in the time-averaged inclination anomaly, however, appear in the heterogeneous-heat-flux cases and are absent from the homogeneous cases. A sympathetic reader would care because the result ties surface magnetic records directly to the pattern of heat leaving the core and to the balance of chemical versus thermal buoyancy inside it.

Core claim

Top-heavy geodynamo simulations that include heterogeneous outer boundary thermal forcing produce longitudinal variations in the time-averaged inclination anomaly that match observational constraints from paleomagnetic records, whereas simulations with homogeneous mantle heat flux do not. Increasing chemical driving reduces these longitudinal structures without erasing them and promotes deeper polar minima in the radial magnetic field. The results imply that Earth's outer core experiences both strong heat flux heterogeneity at the core-mantle boundary and significant chemical driving, resulting in small but persistent departures from the geocentric axial dipole approximation.

What carries the argument

Top-heavy thermochemical geodynamo simulations with variable chemical driving strength and heterogeneous outer boundary heat flux, which separate equatorial thermal effects from polar chemical effects.

Load-bearing premise

The top-heavy thermochemical geodynamo model with the chosen ranges of chemical driving strength and boundary heat flux heterogeneity accurately represents the dominant buoyancy sources and boundary conditions in Earth's outer core.

What would settle it

A paleomagnetic compilation covering multiple intervals that shows no longitudinal variations in time-averaged inclination anomaly, even though independent evidence indicates heterogeneous mantle heat flux, would falsify the reported match.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26042 by Andrew T. Clarke, Christopher J. Davies, Hannah F. Rogers, Jonathan E. Mound, Souvik Naskar, Stephen J. Mason.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: All 14 simulations in the Rm − fdip plane, coloured by thermal Rayleigh number (RafT ). Symbol shape demarcates homogeneous (pentagram) and heterogeneous (square) simulations, whereas symbol size differentiates between low (small) and high (big) Rafξ cases. suite, the heterogeneous simulations (square symbols, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Variation of the total (a) QPM misfit (∆QPM) and (b) median paleo-secular variation index Pi with dipole fraction (fdip). Symbols in (a) have the same meaning as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Time-averaged radial magnetic field at the CMB truncated at fff [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normalized Gauss coefficients (a) g 1 1/g0 1 and (b) g 0 3/g0 1 for all simulations compared with field models. Symbol shapes and sizes have the same meaning as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Timeseries of the radial position of the dipole at the equatorial plane for the three example cases ffff [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time-averaged inclination anomaly (∆I) maps at Earth’s surface with site locations from the PSV10 database (Sprain et al., 2019) marked by crosses. The time-averaged field has been truncated at ℓmax = 10. 4. Discussion The most prominent structures induced by boundary heat-flux heterogeneity in our sim￾ulations appear to be the high-latitude flux patches (Figure 3b,c). The structures of the 15 [PITH_FULL_… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Variation of time-averaged inclination anomaly range at the equator for the simulations in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The time-averaged geomagnetic field provides crucial insights into deep Earth dynamics and thermal core-mantle interactions. Paleomagnetic observations and numerical dynamo simulations are equivocal regarding the longitudinal structure of the time-averaged field, though the latter have often considered a generic buoyancy source, which may obscure distinct signatures of thermal and chemical buoyancy that arise near the equator and poles, respectively. In this study, we present a new suite of top-heavy geodynamo simulations, varying the relative strengths of thermal and chemical driving and comparing the resultant magnetic signatures to observational field models spanning centuries to tens of thousands of years. None of the spatially-averaged measures of field morphology and variability we tested could robustly distinguish between different levels of chemical driving or the presence of heterogeneous outer boundary heat flux. On the other hand, observational constraints requiring longitudinal variations in time-averaged inclination anomaly are readily matched by simulations with heterogeneous outer boundary thermal forcing, in contrast to those with homogeneous mantle heat flux. Longitudinal field structures are reduced, but not erased, by elevated chemical driving, which also promotes the formation and deepening of polar minima in the radial magnetic field. Our simulations indicate that both the strong heat flux heterogeneity and chemical driving in Earth's core are likely to result in small but persistent departures from the geocentric axial dipole approximation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a suite of top-heavy thermochemical geodynamo simulations that vary the relative strength of chemical versus thermal buoyancy while imposing either homogeneous or heterogeneous outer-boundary heat flux. Spatially averaged field morphology metrics fail to distinguish the cases, but simulations with heterogeneous boundary forcing reproduce the longitudinal variations in time-averaged inclination anomaly required by paleomagnetic field models spanning centuries to tens of kyr; elevated chemical driving reduces but does not eliminate these structures and deepens polar radial-field minima. The authors conclude that both strong mantle heat-flux heterogeneity and chemical driving are likely present in Earth’s core.

Significance. If the chosen buoyancy partitioning and boundary implementation are representative of the outer core, the work supplies a concrete mechanistic link between core-mantle thermal interactions and a specific, observationally testable paleomagnetic signature, moving beyond generic buoyancy assumptions common in earlier dynamo studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / Simulation Setup] The central claim—that heterogeneous outer-boundary heat flux produces longitudinal inclination-anomaly variations matching observations while homogeneous flux does not—rests on the fidelity of the selected ranges of chemical Rayleigh number, thermal driving strength, and imposed heat-flux heterogeneity. No quantitative justification for these ranges, no resolution or benchmark tests, and no sensitivity sweeps demonstrating that the heterogeneous-versus-homogeneous distinction survives changes in buoyancy partitioning are provided.
  2. [Results / Comparison to Observations] The abstract states that observational constraints on longitudinal inclination-anomaly variations are 'readily matched' by the heterogeneous cases. Without explicit description of how the time-averaged inclination anomaly is extracted from the simulations, which paleomagnetic field models are used, data exclusion criteria, or error quantification in the comparison, it is impossible to judge whether the reported match is robust or an artifact of post-processing choices.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the relative chemical driving strength should be defined once in the text and used consistently; the abstract introduces the concept without a symbol or equation reference.
  2. Figure captions should state the exact time-averaging interval and number of realizations used for each reported field morphology metric.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our results. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / Simulation Setup] The central claim—that heterogeneous outer-boundary heat flux produces longitudinal inclination-anomaly variations matching observations while homogeneous flux does not—rests on the fidelity of the selected ranges of chemical Rayleigh number, thermal driving strength, and imposed heat-flux heterogeneity. No quantitative justification for these ranges, no resolution or benchmark tests, and no sensitivity sweeps demonstrating that the heterogeneous-versus-homogeneous distinction survives changes in buoyancy partitioning are provided.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would be strengthened by explicit justification and additional tests. The chosen ranges are motivated by estimates of chemical versus thermal buoyancy in Earth's core from prior literature, but we will add a new subsection in Methods providing quantitative rationale with references, along with resolution and benchmark tests. We will also include a sensitivity analysis (based on additional runs) showing the heterogeneous-versus-homogeneous distinction in longitudinal inclination anomalies persists across variations in buoyancy partitioning. These will be incorporated in the revised version. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results / Comparison to Observations] The abstract states that observational constraints on longitudinal inclination-anomaly variations are 'readily matched' by the heterogeneous cases. Without explicit description of how the time-averaged inclination anomaly is extracted from the simulations, which paleomagnetic field models are used, data exclusion criteria, or error quantification in the comparison, it is impossible to judge whether the reported match is robust or an artifact of post-processing choices.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the comparison procedure requires more detail for reproducibility. In the revised manuscript we will expand the relevant Results subsection to describe exactly how the time-averaged inclination anomaly is extracted (including averaging intervals and spatial binning), name the specific paleomagnetic field models used, state any exclusion criteria, and report quantitative metrics such as RMS misfit and correlation coefficients between simulated and observed longitudinal variations. This will permit direct evaluation of the robustness of the match. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward simulations compared to independent paleomagnetic observations

full rationale

The paper runs suites of top-heavy thermochemical geodynamo simulations, varying chemical Rayleigh number, thermal driving strength, and outer-boundary heat-flux heterogeneity, then directly compares the resulting time-averaged field morphologies (inclination anomaly, radial field minima, etc.) against external paleomagnetic field models that span centuries to tens of thousands of years. No quantity reported as a “prediction” or “signature” is obtained by fitting parameters to those same observational data sets; the simulations are forward integrations whose outputs are contrasted with independent data. No self-citation chain, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz imported from prior author work is invoked to justify the central distinction between heterogeneous and homogeneous cases. The derivation therefore consists of numerical modeling followed by external comparison and contains no reduction of outputs to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the numerical geodynamo model and the representativeness of the chosen buoyancy and boundary parameters, none of which are quantified in the abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • relative strength of chemical driving
    Varied across the simulation suite to test effects on field morphology and variability
  • parameters controlling heterogeneous outer boundary heat flux
    Chosen to represent mantle thermal heterogeneity; specific amplitudes and patterns not stated in abstract
axioms (2)
  • standard math The Boussinesq approximation and standard MHD equations govern core fluid dynamics
    Invoked as the foundation of all geodynamo simulations
  • domain assumption Top-heavy buoyancy distribution is an appropriate idealization for Earth's outer core
    Central modeling choice that distinguishes the simulation suite

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5787 in / 1433 out tokens · 32780 ms · 2026-06-25T19:05:22.368687+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Amit, H., Deschamps, F., Choblet, G., 2015b

    doi:10.1186/S40645-015-0056-3. Amit, H., Deschamps, F., Choblet, G., 2015b. Numerical dynamos with outer boundary heat flux inferred from probabilistic tomography—consequences for latitudinal distribution of magnetic flux. Geophys. J. Int. 203, 840–855. doi:10.1093/gji/ggv332. Aubert, J.,

    work page doi:10.1186/s40645-015-0056-3

  2. [2]

    Approaching earth’s core conditions in high-resolution geodynamo simulations. Geophys. J. Int. 219, S137–S151. doi:10.1093/gji/ggz232. Aubert, J., Gastine, T., Fournier, A.,

    work page doi:10.1093/gji/ggz232

  3. [3]

    Spherical convective dynamos in the rapidly rotating asymptotic regime. J. Fluid Mech. 813, 558–593. doi:10.1017/jfm.2016.789. Aurnou, J., King, E.,

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2016.789 2016

  4. [4]

    The cross-over to magnetostrophic convection in planetary dynamo systems. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math Phys. Sci. 473, 20160731. doi:10.1098/rspa.2016.0731. Biggin, A.J., Davies, C.J., Mound, J.E., Lloyd, S.J., Engbers, Y.E., Thallner, D., Clarke, A.T., Bono, R.K.,

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.2016.0731 2016

  5. [5]

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 358, 1171–1179

    The effect of thermal core–mantle interactions on the palaeomagnetic secular variation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 358, 1171–1179. doi:10.1098/rsta.2000.0579. Bouffard, M., Choblet, G., Labrosse, S., Wicht, J.,

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2000.0579 2000

  6. [6]

    Buffett, B.A., Seagle, C.T.,

    doi:10.3389/feart.2019.00099. Buffett, B.A., Seagle, C.T.,

    work page doi:10.3389/feart.2019.00099 2019

  7. [7]

    Butler, R.F.,

    doi:10.1029/2009JB006751. Butler, R.F.,

    work page doi:10.1029/2009jb006751

  8. [8]

    Quasi-geostrophic dynamo theory. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 276, 182–189. doi:10. 1016/j.pepi.2017.05.001. Calkins, M.A., Orvedahl, R.J., Featherstone, N.A.,

    2017

  9. [9]

    Large-scale balances and asymptotic scaling behaviour in spherical dynamos. Geophys. J. Int. 227, 1228–1245. doi:10.1093/gji/ggab274. Cao, H., Yadav, R.K., Aurnou, J.M.,

    work page doi:10.1093/gji/ggab274

  10. [10]

    Geomagnetic polar minima do not arise from steady meridional circulation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11186–11191. doi:10.1073/pnas.1717454115. Christensen, U., Aubert, J., Hulot, G.,

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1717454115

  11. [11]

    Conditions for earth-like geodynamo models. Earth. Planet. Sci. Lett. 296, 487–496. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2010.06.009. Christensen, U., Olson, P.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2010.06.009 2010

  12. [12]

    Secular variation in numerical geodynamo models with lateral variations of boundary heat flow. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 138, 39–54. doi:10.1016/S0031-9201(03)00064-5. Christensen, U.R., Wardinski, I., Lesur, V.,

    work page doi:10.1016/s0031-9201(03)00064-5

  13. [13]

    Timescales of geomagnetic secular acceleration in satellite field models and geodynamo models. Geophys. J. Int. 190, 243–254. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012. 05508.x. Clarke, A.T., Davies, C.J., Mason, S.J., Naskar, S.,

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-246x.2012 2012

  14. [14]

    Accessing the dipole-multipole transition in rapidly rotating spherical shell dynamos. Geophys. J. Int. , ggag092doi:10.1093/gji/ggag092. Constable, C., Korte, M., Panovska, S.,

    work page doi:10.1093/gji/ggag092

  15. [15]

    Earth Planet

    Persistent high paleosecular variation activity in southern hemisphere for at least 10000 years. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 453, 78–86. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2016.08

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2016.08 2016

  16. [16]

    Geochemistry, Geophys

    Psv10: A global data set for 0–10 ma time-averaged field and paleosecular variation studies. Geochemistry, Geophys. Geosystems 19, 1533–1558. doi:10.1002/2017GC007318. Dannberg, J., Gassmoeller, R., Thallner, D., LaCombe, F., Sprain, C.,

    work page doi:10.1002/2017gc007318

  17. [17]

    Changes in core–mantle boundary heat flux patterns throughout the supercontinent cycle. Geophys. J. Int. 237, 1251–1274. doi:10.1093/gji/ggae075. Davidson, P.A.,

    work page doi:10.1093/gji/ggae075

  18. [19]

    Constraints from material properties on the dynamics and evolution of earth’s core. Nat. Geosci. 8, 678–685. doi:10.1038/ngeo2492. Davies, C.J., Constable, C.G.,

    work page doi:10.1038/ngeo2492

  19. [20]

    Earth Planet

    Insights from geodynamo simulations into long-term geomagnetic field behaviour. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 404, 238–249. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2014.07.042. Davies, C.J., Greenwood, S.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2014.07.042 2014

  20. [21]

    A buoyancy profile for the Earth’s core. Geophys. J. Int. 187, 549–563. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05144.x. Davies, C.J., Gubbins, D., Jimack, P.K.,

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-246x.2011.05144.x 2011

  21. [22]

    Scalability of pseudospectral methods for geodynamo simu- lations. Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exp. 23, 38–56. doi:10.1002/cpe.1593. Davies, C.J., Gubbins, D., Willis, A.P., Jimack, P.K.,

    work page doi:10.1002/cpe.1593

  22. [23]

    Time-averaged paleomagnetic field and secular variation: Predictions from dynamo solutions based on lower mantle seismic tomography. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 169, 194–203. doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2008.07.021. palaeomagnetism and the Earth’s Deep Interior. Deschamps, F., Guerrero, J.M., Amit, H., Terra-Nova, F., Hsieh, W.P.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2008.07.021 2008

  23. [24]

    Nat.Geosci.doi:10.1038/s41561-026-02018-w

    Negative core–mantle bound- aryheatfluxbeneathlow-shear-wave-velocityprovinces. Nat.Geosci.doi:10.1038/s41561-026-02018-w. Fan, W., Lin, Y.,

    work page doi:10.1038/s41561-026-02018-w

  24. [25]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 130, e2025JE008969

    Dynamos driven by top-heavy double-diffusive convection in the strong-field regime. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 130, e2025JE008969. doi:10.1029/2025JE008969. e2025JE008969 2025JE008969. Frasson, T., Schaeffer, N., Nataf, H.C., Labrosse, S.,

    work page doi:10.1029/2025je008969

  25. [26]

    Geomagnetic dipole stability and zonal flows controlled by mantle heat flux heterogeneities. Geophys. J. Int. 240, 1481–1504. doi:10.1093/gji/ ggae457. Gubbins, D.,

    work page doi:10.1093/gji/

  26. [27]

    American Geophysical Union (AGU)

    Thermal Core-Mantle Interactions: Theory and Observations. American Geophysical Union (AGU). pp. 163–179. doi:10.1029/GD031p0163. Gubbins, D.,

    work page doi:10.1029/gd031p0163

  27. [28]

    Earth, Planets and Space 59, 661–664

    Geomagnetic constraints on stratification at the top of earth’s core. Earth, Planets and Space 59, 661–664. doi:10.1186/BF03352728. Gubbins, D., Willis, A.P., Sreenivasan, B.,

    work page doi:10.1186/bf03352728

  28. [29]

    Correlation of earth’s magnetic field with lower mantle thermal and seismic structure. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 162, 256–260. doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2007.04

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2007.04 2007

  29. [30]

    Mapping geomagnetic secular variation at the core–mantle boundary. Geophys. J. Int. 186, 521–528. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05066.x. Jackson, A., Jonkers, A.R.T., Walker, M.R.,

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-246x.2011.05066.x 2011

  30. [31]

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engi- neering Sciences 358, 957–990

    Four centuries of geomagnetic secular variation from historical records. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engi- neering Sciences 358, 957–990. doi:10.1098/rsta.2000.0569. James, R.W., Winch, D.E.,

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2000.0569 2000

  31. [32]

    Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 128, 13–24

    Definition of the Rayleigh number for geodynamo simulation. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 128, 13–24. doi:10.1016/S0031-9201(01)00274-6. Korte, M., Constable, C.G., Davies, C.J., Panovska, S.,

    work page doi:10.1016/s0031-9201(01)00274-6

  32. [33]

    2022.957815

    doi:10.3389/feart. 2022.957815. Kutzner, C., Christensen, U.R.,

    work page doi:10.3389/feart 2022

  33. [34]

    From stable dipolar towards reversing numerical dynamos. Phys. 33 Earth Planet. Inter. 131, 29–45. doi:10.1016/S0031-9201(02)00016-X. Kutzner, C., Christensen, U.R.,

    work page doi:10.1016/s0031-9201(02)00016-x

  34. [35]

    Simulated geomagnetic reversals and preferred virtual geomagnetic pole paths. Geophys. J. Int. 157, 1105–1118. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02309.x. Labrosse, S.,

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-246x.2004.02309.x 2004

  35. [36]

    Thermal evolution of the core with a high thermal conductivity. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 247, 36–55. doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2015.02.002. Laj, C., Kissel, C., Davies, C., Gubbins, D.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2015.02.002 2015

  36. [37]

    Geomagnetic field intensity and inclination records from hawaii and the réunion island: Geomagnetic implications. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 187, 170–187. doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2011.05.007. special Issue: Planetary Magnetism, Dynamo and Dynamics. Landeau, M., Aubert, J., Olson, P.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2011.05.007 2011

  37. [38]

    Earth Planet

    The signature of inner-core nucleation on the geodynamo. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 465, 193–204. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2017.02.004. Lhuillier, F., Fournier, A., Hulot, G., Aubert, J.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2017.02.004 2017

  38. [39]

    Lowes, F.J.,

    doi:10.1029/2011GL047356. Lowes, F.J.,

    work page doi:10.1029/2011gl047356

  39. [40]

    Spatial power spectrum of the main geomagnetic field, and extrapolation to the core. Geophys. J. Int. 36, 717–730. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1974.tb00622.x. Lézin, M., Amit, H., Terra-Nova, F., Wardinski, I.,

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-246x.1974.tb00622.x 1974

  40. [41]

    Mantle-driven north–south dichotomy in geomag- netic polar minima. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 337, 107000. doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2023.107000. Mason, S.J., Davies, C.J., Clarke, A.T., Constable, C.G.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2023.107000 2023

  41. [42]

    Earth Planet

    Insights into the last 100 ky of geomagnetic field variability using numerical dynamo simulations. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 646, 119011. doi:10.1016/ j.epsl.2024.119011. Masters, T.G., Johnson, S., Laske, G., Bolton, H.,

    arXiv 2024

  42. [43]

    A shear-velocity model of the mantle. Philos. T. Roy. Soc. London A 354, 1385–1411. doi:10.1098/rsta.1996.0054. Matsui, H., Heien, E., Aubert, J., Aurnou, J.M., Avery, M., Brown, B., Buffett, B.A., Busse, F., Christensen, U.R., Davies, C.J., et al.,

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.1996.0054 1996

  43. [44]

    Mound, J., Davies, C., Rost, S., Aurnou, J.,

    Numerical dynamo simulations reproduce palaeomagnetic field behaviour doi:10.1002/essoar.10504074.2. Mound, J., Davies, C., Rost, S., Aurnou, J.,

    work page doi:10.1002/essoar.10504074.2

  44. [45]

    Regional stratification at the top of earth’s core due to core–mantle boundary heat flux variations. Nat. Geosci. 12, 575–580. doi:10.1038/s41561-019-0381-z. Mound, J., Davies, C., Silva, L.,

    work page doi:10.1038/s41561-019-0381-z

  45. [46]

    Earth Planet

    Inner core translation and the hemispheric balance of the geomagnetic field. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 424, 148–157. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2015.05.028. Mound, J.E., Davies, C.J.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2015.05.028 2015

  46. [47]

    Heat transfer in rapidly rotating convection with heterogeneous thermal boundary conditions. J. Fluid Mech. 828, 601–629. doi:10.1017/jfm.2017.539. Mound, J.E., Davies, C.J.,

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2017.539 2017

  47. [48]

    Mound, J.E., Davies, C.J.,

    doi:10.1029/2020GL087715. Mound, J.E., Davies, C.J.,

    work page doi:10.1029/2020gl087715

  48. [49]

    Longitudinal structure of earth’s magnetic field controlled by lower mantle heat flow. Nat. Geosci. doi:10.1038/s41561-023-01148-9. Nakagawa, T., Davies, C.J.,

    work page doi:10.1038/s41561-023-01148-9

  49. [50]

    Naskar, S., Davies, C., Mound, J., Clarke, A.,

    doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2022.117752. Naskar, S., Davies, C., Mound, J., Clarke, A.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2022.117752 2022

  50. [51]

    Force balances in spherical shell rotating convection. J. Fluid Mech. 1009, A70. doi:10.1017/jfm.2025.259. Naskar, S., Mound, J.E., Davies, C.J., Clarke, A.T.,

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2025.259 2025

  51. [52]

    Asymptotic scaling relations for rotating spherical convection with strong zonal flows. J. Fluid Mech. 981, A22. doi:10.1017/jfm.2024.78. Nimmo, F.,

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2024.78 2024

  52. [53]

    (Ed.), Treatise on Geophysics (Second Edition), Volume 8: Core Dynamics

    Energetics of the Core, in: Olson, P. (Ed.), Treatise on Geophysics (Second Edition), Volume 8: Core Dynamics. Elsevier, pp. 27–56. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53802-4.00139-1. Olson, P.,

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-53802-4.00139-1

  53. [54]

    Geochemistry, Geophys

    Mantle control of the geodynamo: Consequences of top-down regulation. Geochemistry, Geophys. Geosystems 17, 1935–1956. doi:10.1002/2016GC006334. Olson, P., Christensen, U.R.,

    work page doi:10.1002/2016gc006334 1935

  54. [55]

    The time-averaged magnetic field in numerical dynamos with non- uniform boundary heat flow. Geophys. J. Int. 151, 809–823. doi:10.1046/j.1365-246X.2002.01818.x. 34 Olson, P., Deguen, R.,

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-246x.2002.01818.x 2002

  55. [56]

    Eccentricity of the geomagnetic dipole caused by lopsided inner core growth. Nat. Geosci. 5, 565–569. doi:10.1038/NGEO1506. Olson, P., Landeau, M., Reynolds, E.,

    work page doi:10.1038/ngeo1506

  56. [57]

    Dynamo tests for stratification below the core-mantle boundary. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 271, 1–18. doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2017.07.003. Olson, P., Landeau, M., Reynolds, E., 2018a. Outer core stratification from the high latitude structure of the geomagnetic field. Frontiers in Earth Science

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2017.07.003 2017

  57. [58]

    Olson, P., Landeau, M., Reynolds, E., 2018b

    doi:10.3389/feart.2018.00140. Olson, P., Landeau, M., Reynolds, E., 2018b. True dipole wander. Geophys. J. Int. 215, 1523–1529. doi:10.1093/gji/ggy349. Olson, P.L., Coe, R.S., Driscoll, P.E., Glatzmaier, G.A., Roberts, P.H.,

    work page doi:10.3389/feart.2018.00140 2018

  58. [59]

    Geodynamo reversal frequency and heterogeneous core–mantle boundary heat flow. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 180, 66–79. doi:10.1016/ j.pepi.2010.02.010. O’Rourke, J.G., Stevenson, D.J.,

    2010

  59. [60]

    doi:10.1038/nature16495

    Powering earth’s dynamo with magnesium precipitation from the core 529, 387–389. doi:10.1038/nature16495. Panovska, S., Constable, C.G.,

    work page doi:10.1038/nature16495

  60. [61]

    Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 18, 1366–1375

    An activity index for geomagnetic paleosecular variation, excursions, and reversals. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 18, 1366–1375. doi:10.1002/2016GC006668. Panovska, S., Constable, C.G., Korte, M.,

    work page doi:10.1002/2016gc006668

  61. [62]

    Geochemistry, Geophys

    Extending global continuous geomagnetic field recon- structions on timescales beyond human civilization. Geochemistry, Geophys. Geosystems 19, 4757–4772. doi:10.1029/2018GC007966. Panovska, S., Korte, M., Constable, C.G.,

    work page doi:10.1029/2018gc007966

  62. [63]

    doi:10.1029/2019RG000656

    One hundred thousand years of geomagnetic field evolution. doi:10.1029/2019RG000656. Pozzo, M., Davies, C., Gubbins, D., Alfe, D.,

    work page doi:10.1029/2019rg000656

  63. [64]

    Feo content of earth’s liquid core. Phys. Rev. X. 9, 041018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.9.041018. Pružina, P., Cébron, D., Schaeffer, N.,

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.041018

  64. [65]

    Planetary dynamos driven by semi-convection in stratified layers. Astron. Astrophys. 703, A135. URL:10.1051/0004-6361/202556134, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 202556134. Sahoo, S., Sreenivasan, B.,

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556134

  65. [66]

    Earth and Planetary Science Letters 549, 116507

    Response of earth’s magnetic field to large lower mantle heterogeneity. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 549, 116507. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2020.116507. Schwaiger, T., Gastine, T., Aubert, J.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2020.116507 2020

  66. [67]

    Force balance in numerical geodynamo simulations: a system- atic study. Geophys. J. Int. 219, S101–S114. doi:10.1093/gji/ggz192. Schwaiger, T., Gastine, T., Aubert, J.,

    work page doi:10.1093/gji/ggz192

  67. [68]

    Relating force balances and flow length scales in geodynamo simulations. Geophys. J. Int. 224, 1890–1904. doi:10.1093/gji/ggaa545. Sprain, C.J., Biggin, A.J., Davies, C.J., Bono, R.K., Meduri, D.G.,

    work page doi:10.1093/gji/ggaa545 1904

  68. [69]

    Earth Planet

    An assessment of long duration geodynamo simulations using new paleomagnetic modeling criteria (qpm). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 526, 115758. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2019.115758. Stackhouse, S., Stixrude, L., Karki, B.B.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2019.115758 2019

  69. [70]

    Earth and Planetary Science Letters 427, 11–17

    First-principles calculations of the lattice thermal conduc- tivity of the lower mantle. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 427, 11–17. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2015. 06.050. Tassin, T., Gastine, T., Fournier, A.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2015 2015

  70. [71]

    Geomagnetic semblance and dipolar-multipolar transition in top- heavy double-diffusive geodynamo models. Geophys. J. Int. 226, 1897–1919. doi:10.1093/gji/ggab161. Tauxe, L., Heslop, D., Gilder, S.A.,

    work page doi:10.1093/gji/ggab161 1919

  71. [72]

    1017/jfm.2023.332

    doi:10. 1017/jfm.2023.332. Teed, R.J., Dormy, E.,

    2023

  72. [73]

    Scaling of strong-field spherical dynamos. Geophys. Res. Lett. 52, e2025GL118078. doi:10.1029/2025GL118078. e2025GL118078 2025GL118078. Terra-Nova, F., Amit, H.,

    work page doi:10.1029/2025gl118078

  73. [74]

    Turner, J.S.,

    doi:10.1038/s41598-024-59849-z. Turner, J.S.,

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-59849-z

  74. [75]

    Evaluation of archeo- and paleomagnetic field models and their common features. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 366, 107399. doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2025.107399. Willis, A.P., Sreenivasan, B., Gubbins, D.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2025.107399 2025

  75. [76]

    Thermal core–mantle interaction: exploring regimes for ‘locked’ dynamo action. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 165, 83–92. doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2007.08.002. Wilson, A.J., Pozzo, M., Alfè, D., Walker, A.M., Greenwood, S., Pommier, A., Davies, C.J.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pepi.2007.08.002 2007

  76. [77]

    Approaching a realistic force balance in geodynamo simulations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12065–12070. doi:10.1073/pnas. 1608998113. 36

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas