The record of the Earth’s magnetic field for the most part bears more than a passing resemblance to a bar-code mark, by convention black representing normal polarity, i.e. like that at the present, and white signifies reversed polarity. The bar-code resemblance stems from long periods when the geomagnetic poles flipped on a regular, short-term basis, by geological standards. The black and white divisions subdivide time as represented by geomagnetic into chrons of the order of a million-years and subchrons that are somewhat shorter intervals. Stemming from changes in the Earth’s core, magnetostratigraphic divisions potentially occur in any sequence of sedimentary or volcanic igneous rocks anywhere on the planet and so can be used as reliable time markers; that is, if they can be defined by measurements of the remanent magnetism preserved in rock, which is not universally achievable. Yet this method of chronometry is extremely useful, for most of the Phanerozoic. However, there were periods when the geomagnetic field became unusually stable for tens of million years so the method is not so good. These have become known as superchrons, of which three occur during Phanerozoic times: the Cretaceous Normal Superchron when the field remained as it is nowadays from 120 to 83 Ma; a 50 Ma long period of stable reversed polarity (Kiaman Reverse Superchron) from 312 to 262 Ma in the Late Carboniferous and Early Permian; the Ordovician Moyero Reverse Superchron from 485 to 463 Ma.
Because the geomagnetic field is almost certainly generated by a self-exciting dynamo in the convecting liquid metallic outer core, polarity flips mark sudden changes in how heat is transferred through the outer core to pass into the lower mantle. It follows that if there are no magnetic reversals then the outer core continued in a stable form of convection; the likely condition during superchrons. But why the shifts from repeated instability to long periods of quiescence? That is one of geoscience’s ‘hard’ questions, since no-one really knows how the core works at any one time, let alone over hundreds of million years. There is however a crude correlation with events much closer to the surface. The Kiaman superchron spans a time when Alfred Wegener’s supercontinent Pangaea had finished assembling so that all continental material was in one vast chunk. The Cretaceous superchron was at a time when sea-floor spreading and the break-up of Pangaea reached a maximum. The Ordovician, Moyero superchron coincides with the unification of what are now the northern continents into Laurasia and the continued existence of the southern continents lumped in Gondwana, so that the Earth had two supercontinents. Those empirical observations may have been due to chance, but at least they provide a possible clue to linkage between lithosphere and core, despite their separation by 2800 km of convecting mantle that transfers the core heat as well as that produced by the mantle itself to dissipate at the surface. Enter the modellers.
How part of the Earth transfers heat is, not unexpectedly, very complex, depending not only on what is happening at that point but on heat-transfer processes and heat inputs both above and below it. The surface heat flow is complex in its own right ranging from less than 20 to as much as 350 mW m-2, the largest amount being through zones of sea-floor spreading and the least through continental lithosphere. Wherever heat is released in the core and mantle, willy-nilly the bulk of it leaves the solid Earth along what is today a complex series of lines; active oceanic ridge and rift systems such as the mid-Atlantic Ridge. These lines weave between six drifting continental masses and many more sites of additional heat loss – hot spots and mantle plumes. The many heat escape routes today complicate the deeper convective processes and there are many possibilities for the core to shed heat, yet they continually change pace and position. When, inevitably, all continental lithosphere unites in a supercontinent, almost by definition, the sites of heat loss simplify too, the supercontinent acting like an efficient insulating blanket. In a qualitative sense, this kind of evolving scenario is what modellers try to mimic by putting in reasonable parameters for all the dynamic aspects involved. Two physicists at the University of Colorado in Boulder, USA, Nan Zhang and Shije Zhong, have formulated 3-D spherical models of mantle convection with plate tectonics as a basis for whole Earth thermal evolution over that last 350 Ma (Zhang, N & Zhong, S. 2011. Heat fluxes at the Earth’s surface and core–mantle boundary since Pangea formation. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 306, p. 205-216). The acid test is whether the model can end with a close approximation to modern variations in heat flow and distribution of ages on the sea floor; it does. A probable key to stability in the means of transfer of heat from core to lower mantle – itself a key to a constant outer-core dynamo and geomagnetic polarity – is reduced heat flow at equatorial latitudes; a sort of equatorial downflow of convection with upflows in both northern and southern hemispheres. Zhang and Zhong’s model produced minimal core-to-mantle heat flow at the Equator at 270 and 100 Ma, both within geomagnetic-field superchrons. Well, that is a good start. Superchrons seem also to have occurred from time to time during the Precambrian, one being documented at the Mesoproterozoic-Neoperoterozoic boundary about 1000 Ma ago. At that time, all continental lithosphere was assembled in a supercontinent dubbed Rodinia (‘homeland’ or ‘birthplace’ in Russian).