the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 06 Aug 2025
A magnetogenic framework integrating planetary magnetism and heat
Abstract. Planetary magnetic fields are commonly thought to be generated by a planet-interior dynamo, wherein convection cells convert mechanical to magnetic energy via induced electric currents. Europa and Callisto’s fields however are spawned by currents that are induced by the magnetic flux generated during their passage through Jupiter’s field, and are therefore generated via a magnetic to electric to magnetic energy conversion. The Earth-incident solar wind deformation of the geomagnetic field induces similar currents in Earth’s Outer Core. This article documents how solar wind induced currents regenerate the geomagnetic field and how waste heat from their magnetogenesis causes regional geothermal anomalies. This newly developed Solar Wind Induced Electric Dynamo (SWIED) framework explains the presence, magnitude, geometry and stability of the Earth’s dipolar and non-dipolar fields, as well as its current polarity. It clarifies the origins of Earth’s fluid Outer and solid Inner Core, and offers realistic mechanisms for geomagnetic excursions and reversals, secular non-dipole drift, and solar signals in the geomagnetic power spectrum. It accounts for the areas of high surface heat flow that originate in the Outer Core, thereby establishing the link between magnetogenesis, volcanism and continental drift.
The Gas and Ice Giants’ magnetic fields are very likely generated by similar SWIEDs, whose by-product is substantial magnetogenic waste heat that significantly contributes to emitted planetary radiation, largely explaining why these planets emit more energy than they receive through solar irradiation alone. The SWIED model rationalizes their magnetic field geometries and heat anomalies, and accurately hindcasts their magnetic field strengths from best-estimate input data.
- Preprint
(4901 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3454', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jan 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Koen Vogel, 23 Jan 2026
RC1's bases their review by refuting any idea which isn't in a 20+ year old textbook. New theories challenge old theories, and relying on the "well-established" that fails to explains e.g. solar signals in the geomagnetic field strength will keep the unexplained in its current state.
RC1's statement that solar wind generated EM flux cannot reach the core is only true for EM flux where the bulk of the energy resides in the electric field. Earth's Mantle is a poor electric conductor. It is well-established - by observation - that low frequency EM flux does penetrate long distances through most non-ferromagnetic materials, e.g. 3-30 Hz ELF transponders, as more energy resides in their magnetic field (Ott & Schelkunoff references). Earth's Mantle has low magnetic susceptibility, and so does not significantly interact with a low frequency EM pulse's main magnetic component.
My fig 4 (After Turner et al., 2007) shows that the solar wind deformation of the geomagnetic field locally lowers the geomagnetic field by ~35 nT: the SW charged particles are deflected via the Lorentz force, that is geomagnetic energy is converted (consumed) to particle kinetic energy, locally lowering the geomagnetic field strength. Yet 6 hours later the geomagnetic field is restored to its "normal" strength (fig. 4). Where's this restoration energy coming from if not from the geomagnetic field source, that is Earth's Outer Core? Merrill's textbook does allow for some magnetic energy to make it from Outer Core to surface, despite the Mantle's poor electrical conductivity, but claims this takes on the order of 2 years. The Outer Core cannot restore something 2 years in the past. Merrill does allow geomagnetic EM flux on the order of 40 µT to travel upward through the Mantle, so I am unclear why similar flux cannot travel down through the Mantle. Both power sources are the same order of magnitude, ~5 TW
RC1's review relies on a commonly accepted view. My article attempts to show that this view relies a number wrong assumptions, mainly an inappropriate static skin depth model that is only appropriate for high frequency EM flux. I refer to standard EM textbooks (Ott, Schelkunoff) who state the same. I would also like to point out that the Gas and Ice Giants all emit more thermal energy than they receive via solar insolation energy: Jupiter about 1.5 to 2 times, Saturn emits 2 to 3 times, Neptune radiates 2.6 times the high-frequency solar energy it receives, Uranus emits only a small excess, but still more than it receives. The consensus textbook explanation is Kelvin–Helmholtz gravitational contraction provides the energy, but such cannot explain the seasonal differences highlighted in my article. Solar wind energy can. My article proposes a theory that explains more observations than the Merrill and Lowrie textbooks.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3454-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Koen Vogel, 23 Jan 2026
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3454', Elias Roussos, 09 Feb 2026
Despite many efforts, there was no success in finding a 2nd reviewer for this paper. The follow up steps will rely on the single review submitted so far
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3454-EC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on EC1', Koen Vogel, 10 Feb 2026
1) RC'1 comments rely on "well-established" geodynamo theory and rules of thumb, which in turn can be found in standard textbooks. Rather than taking issue or disproving any of the technical analyses, RC1 relies on " basic observational constraints" that disprove the theory, but fails to mention what these are. There are numerous observational constraints that should constrain "Well-established geodynamo theory (GDT)" , that is observations that cannot be accommodated in its models. As is pointed out in the article, GDT has many problems and issues that the newly proposed theory handily solves:
- GDT cannot explain these observations
- The orbital forcing signatures observed in paleogeomagnetic intensity data
- The temporal coincidence of geomagnetic dipole strength maxima with the Oort, Wolf, and Maunder solar activity minima
- The covariance of geomagnetic data with solar cycles: geomagnetic power spectral lines cluster around 21.4 years (sunspot cycle; Currie, 1973) and 27 days (solar rotation cycle; Banks, 1969)
- geomagnetic jerks occur with 10-year intervals (sunspot cycle; De Michelis et al., 2005)
- geomagnetic variability covaries with solar wind strength (Crooker et al., 1977; Stamper et al., 1999)
- a geodynamo cannot geerate - by several orders of magnitude - enough energy to run itself. GDT can only reproduce the geomagnetic field under input parameters that are “remote from Earth's core values” (Christensen et al. 2010), that is the GDT models can only produce Earth-like strengths and geometries using input parameters such as Core Ekman, magnetic Prandtl and Reynolds numbers that are orders of magnitude different from realistic values.
- Dynamo theory cannot explain most planetary magnetic fields
- Saturn’s axisymmetric dipolar and Neptune’s non-axial offset-dipolar magnetic fields can only be generated by self-sustaining kinematic dynamos under very large and improbable assumptions (Cowling, 1955; Kivelson & Bagenal, 2014; Kaiser & Tilgner, 2014).
- planets such as Saturn (Marley & Fortney, 2014), whose interior conductive layers – their ferromagnetic cores - are currently stable against convection cannot support dynamos
- a wide array of proposed thermal, chemical and mechanical power sources purportedly generate similar order-of-magnitude strength fields (Stanley, 2014):
- No credible kinematic energy source: Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune
- Negative buoyancy due to material hypothetically solidifying at the outer core boundary: Saturn (“Helium rain”), Ganymede (“Iron snow”)
- Positive buoyancy due to thermo-compositional outer core heating: Mercury, Earth
- GDT models have no predictive value as GDT must treat a convecting fluid’s velocity field as fixed input rather than a dynamic variable as the models cannot calculate any deformation of the flow caused by the magnetic field, and therefore cannot capture the time-dependent behavior of a fully nonlinear, chaotic dynamo. RC1's claim they can reliably construct " secular variation, polarity reversals and excursions" relies on fortuitous occurrences, and input parameters and boundary conditions that are orders of magnitude removed from realistic values. Contrast this against SWIED theory that can history match past variations and has predictive values
2) RC1 deems section 4 "physically incorrect" but does not physically demonstrate this, relying in stead once again on well-established consensus rather than demonstrating why the use of the Maxwell equations is incorrect. "This is due to the fact that the mantle is a poor electric conductor and effectively shields the core from rapid electromagnetic induction, preventing externally generated fields from influencing the geodynamo." This is statement is directly disproven in the text for low frequency EM energy, whose energy mainly sits in the magnetic component of the wave, not the electric portion. (Ott, 2009; Schelkunoff, 1943). Geomagnetic EM energy is also transmitted upwards through the mantle through this "poor electric conductor". Poor electric conductivity is therefore not an issue.. This well-known frequency dependency has numerous applications, ranging from ground-penetrating planetary radar [Neish & Carter, 2014], to the thousands of kilometers deep ground penetrating electromagnetic imaging of planetary interiors [Banerdt et al., 2014]. These articles have not been retracted despite RC1's claim that their authors cannot possibly model deep planet interiors using low fequency EM waves.
3) "The manuscript further claims that Joule heating associated with solar-wind-induced currents can produce significant regional thermal anomalies in the outermost parts of the core. Even if weak secondary currents of external origin were to penetrate the core, the associated Ohmic dissipation would be negligibly small and incapable of affecting the geodynamo." This is not claimed by the article. The article proposes the generated heat is dissipated upwards and causes surface geothermal heat anomalies. The proposed SWIED model would also solve the Gas and Ice Giants' so-called energy crisis: they emit more thermal energy than they recieve by high frequency solar radiation. Planet-absrobed solar wind energy adequately meets this deficit.
4) "It is also well established that variations of the geomagnetic dipole observed at the Earth’s surface on timescales of hundreds of years or longer (secular variation, polarity reversals and excursions) arise from internal core dynamics, contrary to what is claimed in the manuscript. In fact, magnetic field variations of external origin are of small amplitude. At the Earth’s surface, the magnetic field generated by external sources typically has amplitudes of only a few nT, whereas the internally generated (dynamo) field has a mean intensity of roughly 40,000 nT." This comment misses the mark entirely. The article does not propose an externally generated field, but one generated in the core as a reaction to Earth-incident solar wind. And again the "well-established " argument that dismisses anything new.
In short, RC1 does not personally fault the reasoning, but relies on other's "well-established" consensus to dismiss the article's conclusions. RC1 would act as a gatekeeper, protecting readers from new ideas, and promoting the status quo.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3454-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on EC1', Koen Vogel, 10 Feb 2026
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3454', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Jan 2026
This manuscript claims to propose a new framework for explaining the origin of the Earth’s magnetic field and its temporal variability on millennial (dipole reversals and excursions), centennial (secular variation), and shorter timescales. The proposed framework is based on the assumption that solar-wind- and magnetospherically induced electric currents regenerate and sustain the internal geomagnetic field. This central assumption is in direct contradiction with well-established geodynamo theory and with basic observational constraints.
The proposed framework is introduced and discussed primarily in Sect. 4, where the author argues that externally driven currents associated with the solar wind and magnetosphere can regenerate the internal geomagnetic field. This interpretation is physically incorrect and renders the subsequent discussion untenable. It is well established that magnetic fields generated by external sources cannot penetrate to the Earth’s outer core, where dynamo action operates. This is due to the fact that the mantle is a poor electric conductor and effectively shields the core from rapid electromagnetic induction, preventing externally generated fields from influencing the geodynamo.
The manuscript further claims that Joule heating associated with solar-wind-induced currents can produce significant regional thermal anomalies in the outermost parts of the core. Even if weak secondary currents of external origin were to penetrate the core, the associated Ohmic dissipation would be negligibly small and incapable of affecting the geodynamo.
It is also well established that variations of the geomagnetic dipole observed at the Earth’s surface on timescales of hundreds of years or longer (secular variation, polarity reversals and excursions) arise from internal core dynamics, contrary to what is claimed in the manuscript. In fact, magnetic field variations of external origin are of small amplitude. At the Earth’s surface, the magnetic field generated by external sources typically has amplitudes of only a few nT, whereas the internally generated (dynamo) field has a mean intensity of roughly 40,000 nT.
All these points are standard results in geomagnetism and can be found in any geophysics textbook (e.g. Merrill et al., “The magnetic field of the Earth”, 1996; Lowrie, “Fundamentals of Geophysics”, 2007). As a consequence, the manuscript’s central claim – that solar-wind-induced currents can regenerate and sustain the internal geomagnetic field – is not physically viable. This fundamental issue undermines the proposed framework and the conclusions drawn from it.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3454-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Koen Vogel, 23 Jan 2026
RC1's bases their review by refuting any idea which isn't in a 20+ year old textbook. New theories challenge old theories, and relying on the "well-established" that fails to explains e.g. solar signals in the geomagnetic field strength will keep the unexplained in its current state.
RC1's statement that solar wind generated EM flux cannot reach the core is only true for EM flux where the bulk of the energy resides in the electric field. Earth's Mantle is a poor electric conductor. It is well-established - by observation - that low frequency EM flux does penetrate long distances through most non-ferromagnetic materials, e.g. 3-30 Hz ELF transponders, as more energy resides in their magnetic field (Ott & Schelkunoff references). Earth's Mantle has low magnetic susceptibility, and so does not significantly interact with a low frequency EM pulse's main magnetic component.
My fig 4 (After Turner et al., 2007) shows that the solar wind deformation of the geomagnetic field locally lowers the geomagnetic field by ~35 nT: the SW charged particles are deflected via the Lorentz force, that is geomagnetic energy is converted (consumed) to particle kinetic energy, locally lowering the geomagnetic field strength. Yet 6 hours later the geomagnetic field is restored to its "normal" strength (fig. 4). Where's this restoration energy coming from if not from the geomagnetic field source, that is Earth's Outer Core? Merrill's textbook does allow for some magnetic energy to make it from Outer Core to surface, despite the Mantle's poor electrical conductivity, but claims this takes on the order of 2 years. The Outer Core cannot restore something 2 years in the past. Merrill does allow geomagnetic EM flux on the order of 40 µT to travel upward through the Mantle, so I am unclear why similar flux cannot travel down through the Mantle. Both power sources are the same order of magnitude, ~5 TW
RC1's review relies on a commonly accepted view. My article attempts to show that this view relies a number wrong assumptions, mainly an inappropriate static skin depth model that is only appropriate for high frequency EM flux. I refer to standard EM textbooks (Ott, Schelkunoff) who state the same. I would also like to point out that the Gas and Ice Giants all emit more thermal energy than they receive via solar insolation energy: Jupiter about 1.5 to 2 times, Saturn emits 2 to 3 times, Neptune radiates 2.6 times the high-frequency solar energy it receives, Uranus emits only a small excess, but still more than it receives. The consensus textbook explanation is Kelvin–Helmholtz gravitational contraction provides the energy, but such cannot explain the seasonal differences highlighted in my article. Solar wind energy can. My article proposes a theory that explains more observations than the Merrill and Lowrie textbooks.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3454-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Koen Vogel, 23 Jan 2026
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3454', Elias Roussos, 09 Feb 2026
Despite many efforts, there was no success in finding a 2nd reviewer for this paper. The follow up steps will rely on the single review submitted so far
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3454-EC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on EC1', Koen Vogel, 10 Feb 2026
1) RC'1 comments rely on "well-established" geodynamo theory and rules of thumb, which in turn can be found in standard textbooks. Rather than taking issue or disproving any of the technical analyses, RC1 relies on " basic observational constraints" that disprove the theory, but fails to mention what these are. There are numerous observational constraints that should constrain "Well-established geodynamo theory (GDT)" , that is observations that cannot be accommodated in its models. As is pointed out in the article, GDT has many problems and issues that the newly proposed theory handily solves:
- GDT cannot explain these observations
- The orbital forcing signatures observed in paleogeomagnetic intensity data
- The temporal coincidence of geomagnetic dipole strength maxima with the Oort, Wolf, and Maunder solar activity minima
- The covariance of geomagnetic data with solar cycles: geomagnetic power spectral lines cluster around 21.4 years (sunspot cycle; Currie, 1973) and 27 days (solar rotation cycle; Banks, 1969)
- geomagnetic jerks occur with 10-year intervals (sunspot cycle; De Michelis et al., 2005)
- geomagnetic variability covaries with solar wind strength (Crooker et al., 1977; Stamper et al., 1999)
- a geodynamo cannot geerate - by several orders of magnitude - enough energy to run itself. GDT can only reproduce the geomagnetic field under input parameters that are “remote from Earth's core values” (Christensen et al. 2010), that is the GDT models can only produce Earth-like strengths and geometries using input parameters such as Core Ekman, magnetic Prandtl and Reynolds numbers that are orders of magnitude different from realistic values.
- Dynamo theory cannot explain most planetary magnetic fields
- Saturn’s axisymmetric dipolar and Neptune’s non-axial offset-dipolar magnetic fields can only be generated by self-sustaining kinematic dynamos under very large and improbable assumptions (Cowling, 1955; Kivelson & Bagenal, 2014; Kaiser & Tilgner, 2014).
- planets such as Saturn (Marley & Fortney, 2014), whose interior conductive layers – their ferromagnetic cores - are currently stable against convection cannot support dynamos
- a wide array of proposed thermal, chemical and mechanical power sources purportedly generate similar order-of-magnitude strength fields (Stanley, 2014):
- No credible kinematic energy source: Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune
- Negative buoyancy due to material hypothetically solidifying at the outer core boundary: Saturn (“Helium rain”), Ganymede (“Iron snow”)
- Positive buoyancy due to thermo-compositional outer core heating: Mercury, Earth
- GDT models have no predictive value as GDT must treat a convecting fluid’s velocity field as fixed input rather than a dynamic variable as the models cannot calculate any deformation of the flow caused by the magnetic field, and therefore cannot capture the time-dependent behavior of a fully nonlinear, chaotic dynamo. RC1's claim they can reliably construct " secular variation, polarity reversals and excursions" relies on fortuitous occurrences, and input parameters and boundary conditions that are orders of magnitude removed from realistic values. Contrast this against SWIED theory that can history match past variations and has predictive values
2) RC1 deems section 4 "physically incorrect" but does not physically demonstrate this, relying in stead once again on well-established consensus rather than demonstrating why the use of the Maxwell equations is incorrect. "This is due to the fact that the mantle is a poor electric conductor and effectively shields the core from rapid electromagnetic induction, preventing externally generated fields from influencing the geodynamo." This is statement is directly disproven in the text for low frequency EM energy, whose energy mainly sits in the magnetic component of the wave, not the electric portion. (Ott, 2009; Schelkunoff, 1943). Geomagnetic EM energy is also transmitted upwards through the mantle through this "poor electric conductor". Poor electric conductivity is therefore not an issue.. This well-known frequency dependency has numerous applications, ranging from ground-penetrating planetary radar [Neish & Carter, 2014], to the thousands of kilometers deep ground penetrating electromagnetic imaging of planetary interiors [Banerdt et al., 2014]. These articles have not been retracted despite RC1's claim that their authors cannot possibly model deep planet interiors using low fequency EM waves.
3) "The manuscript further claims that Joule heating associated with solar-wind-induced currents can produce significant regional thermal anomalies in the outermost parts of the core. Even if weak secondary currents of external origin were to penetrate the core, the associated Ohmic dissipation would be negligibly small and incapable of affecting the geodynamo." This is not claimed by the article. The article proposes the generated heat is dissipated upwards and causes surface geothermal heat anomalies. The proposed SWIED model would also solve the Gas and Ice Giants' so-called energy crisis: they emit more thermal energy than they recieve by high frequency solar radiation. Planet-absrobed solar wind energy adequately meets this deficit.
4) "It is also well established that variations of the geomagnetic dipole observed at the Earth’s surface on timescales of hundreds of years or longer (secular variation, polarity reversals and excursions) arise from internal core dynamics, contrary to what is claimed in the manuscript. In fact, magnetic field variations of external origin are of small amplitude. At the Earth’s surface, the magnetic field generated by external sources typically has amplitudes of only a few nT, whereas the internally generated (dynamo) field has a mean intensity of roughly 40,000 nT." This comment misses the mark entirely. The article does not propose an externally generated field, but one generated in the core as a reaction to Earth-incident solar wind. And again the "well-established " argument that dismisses anything new.
In short, RC1 does not personally fault the reasoning, but relies on other's "well-established" consensus to dismiss the article's conclusions. RC1 would act as a gatekeeper, protecting readers from new ideas, and promoting the status quo.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3454-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on EC1', Koen Vogel, 10 Feb 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,782 | 112 | 35 | 2,929 | 126 | 126 |
- HTML: 2,782
- PDF: 112
- XML: 35
- Total: 2,929
- BibTeX: 126
- EndNote: 126
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This manuscript claims to propose a new framework for explaining the origin of the Earth’s magnetic field and its temporal variability on millennial (dipole reversals and excursions), centennial (secular variation), and shorter timescales. The proposed framework is based on the assumption that solar-wind- and magnetospherically induced electric currents regenerate and sustain the internal geomagnetic field. This central assumption is in direct contradiction with well-established geodynamo theory and with basic observational constraints.
The proposed framework is introduced and discussed primarily in Sect. 4, where the author argues that externally driven currents associated with the solar wind and magnetosphere can regenerate the internal geomagnetic field. This interpretation is physically incorrect and renders the subsequent discussion untenable. It is well established that magnetic fields generated by external sources cannot penetrate to the Earth’s outer core, where dynamo action operates. This is due to the fact that the mantle is a poor electric conductor and effectively shields the core from rapid electromagnetic induction, preventing externally generated fields from influencing the geodynamo.
The manuscript further claims that Joule heating associated with solar-wind-induced currents can produce significant regional thermal anomalies in the outermost parts of the core. Even if weak secondary currents of external origin were to penetrate the core, the associated Ohmic dissipation would be negligibly small and incapable of affecting the geodynamo.
It is also well established that variations of the geomagnetic dipole observed at the Earth’s surface on timescales of hundreds of years or longer (secular variation, polarity reversals and excursions) arise from internal core dynamics, contrary to what is claimed in the manuscript. In fact, magnetic field variations of external origin are of small amplitude. At the Earth’s surface, the magnetic field generated by external sources typically has amplitudes of only a few nT, whereas the internally generated (dynamo) field has a mean intensity of roughly 40,000 nT.
All these points are standard results in geomagnetism and can be found in any geophysics textbook (e.g. Merrill et al., “The magnetic field of the Earth”, 1996; Lowrie, “Fundamentals of Geophysics”, 2007). As a consequence, the manuscript’s central claim – that solar-wind-induced currents can regenerate and sustain the internal geomagnetic field – is not physically viable. This fundamental issue undermines the proposed framework and the conclusions drawn from it.