Paleointensity of various DSDP sites (Table 3)

• Main Authors: Juarez, M T, Tauxe, Lisa
• Format: Dataset
• Language: English
• Published: PANGAEA 2000
• Subjects: 37-332A; 37-332B; 54-420; 64-474A; 65-482D; 65-483; 65-483B; Angle; Best Fit Temp T0; Deep Sea Drilling Project; DEPTH; sediment/rock; Difference; DRILL; Drilling/drill rig; DSDP; DSDP/ODP/IODP sample designation; Elevation of event; Event label; Factor; Glomar Challenger; Latitude of event; Leg37; Leg54; Leg64; Leg65; Longitude of event; Magnetic field; Z-component; Maximum angular deviation; North Atlantic/VALLEY; North Pacific/Gulf of California/BASIN; North Pacific/Gulf of California/CONT RISE; North Pacific/SEDIMENT POND; Number; Sample code/label; Temperature; technical; Virtual dipole moment; Pacific; North Atlantic
• Online Access: https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.723119; https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.723119

The existing database for paleointensity estimates of the ancient geomagnetic field contains more than 1500 data points collected through decades of effort. Despite the huge amount of work put into obtaining these data, there remains a strong bias in the age and global distribution of the data toward very young results from a few locations. Also, few of the data meet strict criteria for reliability and most are of unknown quality. In order to improve the age and spatial distribution of the paleointensity database, we have carried out paleointensity experiments on submarine basaltic glasses from a number of DSDP sites. Of particular interest are the sites that provide paleointensity data spanning the time period 0.3-5 Ma, a time of relatively few high quality published data points. Our new data are concordant with contemporaneous data from the published literature that meet minimum acceptance criteria, and the combined data set yields an average dipole moment of 5.49 +/- 2.36*10**22 Am**2. This average value is comparable to the average paleofield for the period 5-160 Ma (4.2 +/- 2.3*10**22 Am**2) (Juarez et al., 1998, doi:10.1038/29746) and is substantially less than the value of approximately 8*10**22 Am**2 often quoted for the last 5 Myr (e.g. McFadden and McElhinny (1982) J. Geomagn. Geoelectr. 34, 163-189; Goguitchaichvili et al., 1999, doi:10.1016/S0012-821X(99)00010-2).