ectoterrestrial wrote:
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.

Alex writes:
I snipped the remaining text just to save space, but many of your observations are cogent. I just briefly scanned through the Parker paper to see what point he was trying to make.

As you noted, Parker does not address the formation mechanism. Rather he approaches the problem by trying to find a family of solutions that give the minimum magnetic intensities for various layer thicknesses. He notes, for example, that the MAG/ER team opted for a model that resulted in a 20 A/m intensity in a layer 30 km thick. 20 A/m is a rather high value compared to terrestrial analogs (e.g., the Deccan Traps, mid-ocean basalts, etc.), but one that is certainly consistent with the team's model. Parker's calculations show that a lower intensity (in fact ~9 A/m) can be modelled on a similar thickness, which is closer to terrestrial values. Interestingly, as you noted, the various layer thicknesses introduce another problem in intensities, namely destruction of the thermoremanence for layers at sufficient depth.

Alex R. Blackwell
University of Hawaii