The Multispecimen Method for Absolute Paleointensity Determination

Abstract:

Paleointensity methods have seen a large improvement in the 21th century. This included optimizing classic Thellier-style protocols along with establishing stringent sets of quality criteria, developing microwave excitation as an alternative to thermal treatment, selecting sample material that contains the most suitable remanence carriers (i.e. single domain magnetic particles), calibrating non-heating paleointensity methods, and the introduction of the multispecimen paleointensity (MSP) protocol. An MSP experiment is carried out at one specific temperature selected to avoid thermochemical alteration; a series of specimens is heated and cooled in various applied furnace fields oriented parallel to the specimen’s NRM. The furnace field value at which no change in NRM occurs is the paleofield. While the rationale of the MSP approach is surprisingly straightforward, some of the original claims (Dekkers and Böhnel, 2006) are by now shown to be untenable. This pertains to the claimed domain state independence in the original MSP method, although the Fabian and Leonhardt (2010) extended protocol largely corrects for domain state effects.

Here we describe the optimal workflow for MSP experiments derived from our collection of historic flows from four volcanic edifices: Mt. Etna, Hawaii, the Canary Islands, and the Azores. By comparing the experimental outcome derived from historic flows with known paleointensities we found that technically acceptable experiments may yield overestimates, correct determinations, as well as underestimates of the paleofield. The so-called “ARM test” (de Groot et al., 2012) can distinguish between those three options. Based on TRM and ARM being analogues, this test compares ARM acquisition curves of sister samples before and after heating to the MSP experiment temperature. Simulated paleointensity experiments following this workflow consistently deliver the correct answer (Monster et al., submitted).