ectoterrestrial writes:
I really have a hard time buying into the 'sea floor spreading' with reversing dynamo scenario. Maybe it's because I'm not looking at planetary science problems field from a Geoscience perspective but from a more abstract Physics position.

It's possible to get periodically varying phenomea from a number of simple processes which don't necessarily have an Earth analog.

Alex writes:
True, the reversing magnetic field *is* primarily a method of explaining the geoscientific observables (i.e., reversing polarity on both sides of a plate margin. However, in trying to understand the actual mechanisms at work, the geoscientists, as evidenced by Parker above, have entered the realm of abstract mathematics, that is chaos theory, to bridge the gap between Physics and Geoscience.

---

It seems from the abstract that this effort is a description of the source characteristics (spatial variation of the magnetization vector direction but not magnitude by the looks of the abs) and not a mechanism of formation. Perhaps one is offered, if so I stand corrected.

My point is, the consensus seems to be whatever the phenomena responsible for the field topology in the 'striped' provence, it could be possible that it's not something we've witnessed on Earth.

Hmmmm......

Let me be clear here. The physics works the same, I'm not drifting into anomalism here, just trying to illustrate some MAJOR differences in the history of the two planets that would possibly effect the magnetic properties of the crust such as:

-Less planetary differentiation on Mars so higher Iron content in the crust.

-The crust has not been regularly processed by subduction (for about 4Gy at least) and other tectonic messyness.

-Probable lack of any largescale oxygen resperation biosphere, so even if there was a Blue Mars, no red bed (TES found crystaline hematite, corect?) formation.
(i.e.) Most oxidized iron could be in it's most reduced form, (Titano-)Magnetite.
Sulfur plays a role here also, but I know nothing about that as of yet.

-Planetary radius would place the surface closer to the dynamo source, but the total dynamo moment could be less due to smaller scale. A larger field gradient through the crust, at least.

BTW, although I have been learning physics by the institutional method, I've learned much of my Planetary Science/Geology by the Log Cabin method and the economy of LPI student rates, so if you think I'm way off on my assumptions, please let me know.