Strength of the geomagnetic field in the Cretaceous Normal Superchron: New data from submarine basaltic glass of the Troodos Ophiolite
Abstract
We present here new paleointensity data from 39 sampling sites collected from the quenched margins of pillow lavas and dikes exposed within the Troodos Ophiolite (∼92 Ma), formed during the Cretaceous Normal Superchron (CNS), a period of approximately 40 million years when the geomagnetic field reversed extremely infrequently if at all. Monte Carlo simulations suggest that a minimum of 25 estimates are necessary for a reasonably robust estimate for the average field strength. Our data suggest a dipole strength equivalent to the present field or nearly twice the post‐CNS average. The mean and standard deviation of the dipole moment (81 ± 43 ZAm 2; Z = 10 21) from the 57 data points compiled here agree remarkably well with those predicted from the long paleointensity record derived from DSDP Site 522. The new data set for the CNS suggests a picture of a strong and stable field during the period of time when it stopped reversing. Moreover, the similarity of the CNS data with the present geomagnetic field suggests that it is presently in a state of unusual polarity stability.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Paleointensity experiments were carried out following the Thellier-IZZI protocol with pTRM checks at every second temperature step.
“Paleointensity experiments were carried out following the Thellier-IZZI protocol [50, 51] at progressively elevated temperatures, in 50°C steps from 100°C to 200°C, 20°C steps up to 320°C and a high temperature step at 470°C, with pTRM checks [52] at every second temperature step.”
From The Earth’s magnetic field in Jerusalem during the Babylonian destruction: A unique reference for field behavior and an anchor for archaeomagnetic dating (2020) · cites this paper as [50]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shaar, R., Ben-Yosef, E., Ron, H., Tauxe, L., Agnon, A., & Kessel, R. (2011) · Earth and Planetary Science Letters · doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2010.11.013 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Self-citationShaar, R., Tauxe, L., Ron, H., Ebert, Y., Zuckerman, S., Finkelstein, I., & Agnon, A. (2016) · Earth and Planetary Science Letters · doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2016.02.038 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Self-citationSix centuries of geomagnetic intensity variations recorded by royal Judean stamped jar handles
Ben-Yosef, E., Millman, M., Shaar, R., Tauxe, L., & Lipschits, O. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1615797114 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Self-citationFurther evidence of the Levantine Iron Age geomagnetic anomaly from Georgian pottery
Shaar, R., Tauxe, L., Goguitchaichvili, A., Devidze, M., & Licheli, V. (2017) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1002/2016gl071494 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Self-citationBEN‐YOSEF, E., TAUXE, L., & LEVY, T. E. (2010) · Archaeometry · doi:10.1111/j.1475-4754.2010.00528.x · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Self-citationShaar, R., Hassul, E., Raphael, K., Ebert, Y., Segal, Y., Eden, I., Vaknin, Y., Marco, S., Nowaczyk, N. R., Chauvin, A., et al. (2018) · Frontiers in Earth Science · doi:10.3389/feart.2018.00164 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Vaknin, Y., Shaar, R., Gadot, Y., Shalev, Y., Lipschits, O., & Ben-Yosef, E. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0237029 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Peters, I., Tauxe, L., & Ben‐Yosef, E. (2018) · Archaeometry · doi:10.1111/arcm.12322 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Self-citationPre‐Excavation Identification and Dating of Iron Age Destruction Events
Vaknin, Y., Granot, R., Shalom, N., Buzaglo‐Yoresh, E., Keidar‐Goldberg, A., & Münger, S. (2025) · Archaeological Prospection · doi:10.1002/arp.70003 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tauxe, L., & Staudigel, H.
- Affiliations
- Scripps Institution of Oceanography (US)
- Venue
- Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2004-02
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 1525-2027 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1677642133
- Cited by
- 367
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 4.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Studies
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geology › Geological and Geophysical Studies
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
- Keywords
- Cretaceous Normal Superchron, geomagnetic field strength, paleointensity, dipole moment, Troodos ophiolite, pillow basalt, dikes, magnetic field reversal
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
