Dynamic topography, phase boundary topography and latent-heat release Bernhard Steinberger Center for Geodynamics, NGU, Trondheim, Norway.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
SPP 1257 Modelling of the Dynamic Earth from an Integrative Analysis of Potential Fields, Seismic Tomography and other Geophysical Data M. Kaban, A. Baranov.
Advertisements

Plate tectonics is the surface expression of mantle convection
(Introduction to) Earthquake Energy Balance
The Transition Zone: Slabs ’ Purgatory CIDER, Group A Garrett Leahy, Ved Lekic, Urska Manners, Christine Reif, Joost van Summeren, Tai-Lin Tseng,
How Important is the Motion of Subducting Slabs Relative to the Underlying Mantle: A Proposed Study Walter R. Roest & R. Dietmar Müller The University.
Lithospheric Plates The lithosphere can be defined thermally by an isotherm at the base of the lithosphere which should be around 1350 o C. Mantle rocks.
The Earth’s Structure Seismology and the Earth’s Deep Interior The Earth’s Structure from Travel Times Spherically symmetric structure: PREM - Crustal.
Earth’s Interior and Geophysical Properties Chapter 17.
Heat Flow in Young Oceanic Crust: Is Earth’s Heat Flux 44 TW or 31 TW 2008 Joint Assembly, Ft. Lauderdale T21A-01, May 27, 2008 T-21A Thermotectonic Models.
Large Scale Gravity and Isostasy
Scientists divide the Earth
GEO 5/6690 Geodynamics 05 Nov 2014 © A.R. Lowry 2014 Read for Fri 7 Nov: T&S Last Time: Flexural Isostasy Tharsis example Is the Tharsis province.
Geological Constraints Lecture 6: Geodynamics Carolina Lithgow-Bertelloni.
Dynamic elevation of the Cordillera, western United States Anthony R. Lowry, Neil M. Ribe and Robert B. Smith Presentation by Doug Jones.
Geology of the Lithosphere 2. Evidence for the Structure of the Crust & Upper Mantle What is the lithosphere and what is the structure of the lithosphere?
Seismic tomography Tomography attempts to determine anomalous structures within the Earth as revealed by deviations from “average” seismic properties at.
Thermal structure of continental lithosphere from heat flow and seismic constraints: Implications for upper mantle composition and geodynamic models Claire.
CIDER 2011 Research Discussion 1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY.
Prediction of Emperor-Hawaii seamount locations from a revised model of global plate motion and mantle flow Steinberger, R., Sutherland R., and O’Connell,
GEO 5/6690 Geodynamics 24 Oct 2014 © A.R. Lowry 2014 Read for Wed 5 Nov: T&S Last Time: Flexural Isostasy Generally, loading will occur both by.
GEO 5/6690 Geodynamics 24 Oct 2014 © A.R. Lowry 2014 Read for Fri 31 Oct: T&S Last Time: Flexural Isostasy Isostasy is a stress balance resulting.
Integrated 2-D and 3-D Structural, Thermal, Rheological and Isostatic Modelling of Lithosphere Deformation: Application to Deep Intra- Continental Basins.
Magnetic anomaly number age (Ma) from geomagnetic reversal chronology extrapolated in South Atlantic assuming constant rate of spreading paleontological.
Dynamic topography Bernhard Steinberger
Past, Present and Future What have we learned? -Mantle and Plates are an intimately coupled system -Deep mantle structure is important for the surface.
GEO 5/6690 Geodynamics 01 Dec 2014 © A.R. Lowry 2014 Read for Wed 3 Dec: T&S Last Times: Plate as Lithosphere; The Tectosphere Tectosphere is used.
TPW unplugged: Absolute plate motions and true polar wander in the absence of hotspot tracks, 320 — 130 Ma Bernhard Steinberger In collaboration with Trond.
An model for mantle structure evolution and its implications for mantle seismic and compositional structures and supercontinent process Nan Zhang,
Bernhard Steinberger Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum, Potsdam and Centre for Earth Evolution and Dynamics, Univ. Oslo Geodynamic relations between subduction,
Large Low Shear Velocity Provinces in the lowermost mantle, and Plume Generation Zones at their margins Bernhard Steinberger Collaborators: Kevin Burke.
GLOBAL TOPOGRAPHY. CONTINENTAL & OCEANIC LITHOSPHERE.
GOCE OBSERVATIONS FOR DETECTING UNKNOWN TECTONIC FEATURES BRAITENBERG C. (1), MARIANI P. (1), REGUZZONI M. (2), USSAMI N. (3) (1)Department of Geosciences,
What are the Low-Velocity anomalies in the deep mantle? Bernhard Steinberger Center for Geodynamics, NGU, Trondheim, Norway.
GEO 5/6690 Geodynamics 10 Sep 2014 © A.R. Lowry 2014 Read for Wed 10 Sep: T&S Last Time: Radiogenic Heating; Topography Radioactive decay of crustal.
Bernhard Steinberger Mantle evolution and dynamic topography of the African Plate Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum, Potsdam and Physics of Geological Processes,
The Lithosphere There term lithosphere is in a variety of ways. The most general use is as: The lithosphere is the upper region of the crust and mantle.
Which Mantle Interfaces Do Seismologists See? Peter Shearer* IGPP/SIO/U.C. San Diego * With figures from Castle, Deuss, Dueker, Fei, Flanagan, Gao, Gu,
G. Marquart Gravity Effect of Plumes Geodynamik Workshop, Hamburg, Modeling Gravity Anomalies Caused by Mantle Plumes Gabriele Marquart Mantle.
Energy, heat and temperature Olivia Jensen – 13/10/11... for 666 Module 2.
Geology 5640/6640 Introduction to Seismology 24 Apr 2015 © A.R. Lowry 2015 Last time: Amplitude Effects Multipathing describes the focusing and defocusing.
Upper Mantle Viscous Drag on the Lithosphere David Terrell Warner Pacific College March 2006.
Global seismic tomography and its CIDER applications Adam M. Dziewonski KITP, July 14, 2008.
Earthquakes and the Interior  Earthquakes are definitely a geologic hazard for people living in earthquake regions, but the seismic waves generated by.
A parallel pattern of rock material found at identical locations on each side of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge reveals rock of the same geologic age.
An example of vertical profiles of temperature, salinity and density.
Static and dynamic support of western U.S. topography Thorsten W Becker University of Southern California, Los Angeles Claudio Faccenna (Universita di.
Tom Wilson, Department of Geology and Geography tom.h.wilson tom. Department of Geology and Geography West Virginia University Morgantown,
Lijun Liu Seismo Lab, Caltech Dec. 18, 2006 Inferring Mantle Structure in the Past ---Adjoint method in mantle convection.
GEO 5/6690 Geodynamics 21 Nov 2014 © A.R. Lowry 2014 Read for Mon 1 Dec: T&S Last Time: The Lithosphere Revisited There are several different processes.
Geothermics of the Pannonian basin A talk in the frame of the Tibor Mendöl Workshop Lecturer: László Lenkey.
Contributions to SST Anomalies in the Atlantic Ocean [Ocean Control of Air-Sea Heat Fluxes] Kathie Kelly Suzanne Dickinson and LuAnne Thompson University.
Constraints on the observation of mantle plumes using global seismology Arwen Deuss University of Cambridge, UK.
1/24/09 Updated 12/23/09 What about Hawaii? Don L. Anderson.
Gravity anomalies and flexure at the West Taiwan basin:
The influence of lateral permeability of the 660-km discontinuity on geodynamic models of mantle flow. Annemarie G. Muntendam-Bos 1, Ondrej Cadek 2, Wim.
Also: Shijie Objective: reconstruct the mantle from 450Ma to the present-day using a numerical model of mantle convection that includes plate motion history,
Forces and accelerations in a fluid: (a) acceleration, (b) advection, (c) pressure gradient force, (d) gravity, and (e) acceleration associated with viscosity.
GOCE GRADIENT TENSOR CHARACTERIZATION OF THE COUPLED PARANÁ (SOUTH AMERICA) AND ETENDEKA (AFRICA) MAGMATIC PROVINCES Patrizia Mariani and Carla Braitenberg.
Introduction to Seismology
GEO 5/6690 Geodynamics 03 Dec 2014 © A.R. Lowry 2014 Read for Fri 5 Dec: T&S Last Time: Buoyancy (Tectosphere) vs Rheology The isopycnic hypothesis.
Tom.h.wilson tom. Department of Geology and Geography West Virginia University Morgantown, WV More about Isostacy.
Geology 6600/7600 Signal Analysis 18 Nov 2015 Last time: Deconvolution in Flexural Isostasy Tharsis loading controversy: Surface loading by volcanic extrusives?
But, classic Plate Tectonics do not explain everything…
Nils Holzrichter, Jörg Ebbing
By C. Haeger1,2, M. Kaban1, B. Chen3 & A. Petrunin1,4 June 15, 2017
Deep Earth dynamics – numerical and fluid tank modelling
Seismic tomography Tomography attempts to determine anomalous structures within the Earth as revealed by deviations from “average” seismic properties at.
Seismic tomography Tomography attempts to determine anomalous structures within the Earth as revealed by deviations from “average” seismic properties at.
Asthenosphere flow and mantle lithosphere instabilities below continental rifts and rifted margins Jolante van Wijk (University of Houston) Jeroen van.
Session 5: Higher level products (Internal)
Presentation transcript:

Dynamic topography, phase boundary topography and latent-heat release Bernhard Steinberger Center for Geodynamics, NGU, Trondheim, Norway

Prediction of surface uplift and subsidence over time on a large scale is one of the most important outcomes of mantle flow models

Dynamic topography influences which regions are below sea level, and at what depth, and therefore where sediments and related natural resources may form Before attempting to compute uplift and subsidence in the geologic past, we must first understand present-day dynamic topography Present-day topography

Dynamic topography influences which regions are below sea level, and at what depth, and therefore where sediments and related natural resources may form Before attempting to compute uplift and subsidence in the geologic past, we must first understand present-day dynamic topography Present-day topography m

Dynamic topography influences which regions are below sea level, and at what depth, and therefore where sediments and related natural resources may form Before attempting to compute uplift and subsidence in the geologic past, we must first understand present-day dynamic topography Present-day topography minus 200 m

Actual topography Spherical harmonic expansion of observed topography to degree 31 What to compare computations to for present-day

Actual topography MINUS Isostatic topography Computed based on densities and thicknesses of crustal layers in CRUST 2.0 model (Laske, Masters and Reif)

Actual topography MINUS Isostatic topography Non-isostatic topography =

MINUS Thermal topography Computed from the age_2.0 ocean floor age grid (Müller, Gaina, Sdrolias and Heine, 2005) for ages < 100 Ma

Non-isostatic topography residual topography MINUS Thermal topography =

residual topography, l=1-31

Values above sea level multiplied with factor 1.45, because dynamic topography is computed for global seawater coverage

residual topography, l=1-12, above sea level mulitiplied with 1.45 residual topography, l=1-31 Above sea level multiplied with 1.45

residual topography, l=1-12 RMS amplitude 0.52 km

residual topography, l=1-12, our model RMS amplitude 0.52 km Model by Panasyuk and Hager (2000) RMS amplitude 0.52 km Correlation coefficient 0.74

residual topography, l=1-12, our model RMS amplitude 0.52 km Model by Kaban et al. (2003) RMS amplitude 0.64 km Correlation coefficient 0.86

Positive Clapeyron slope

Radial stress kernels K r,l (z) describe how much a density anomaly  lm  at a depth z contributes to dynamic topography: Computed for global water coverage:  s = 2280 kg/m 3 Figure from Steinberger, Marquart and Schmeling (2001) l=2 l=31 l=2 l=31 l=2 l=31 l=2 l=31 K r,l (z)

Densities inferred from S-wave tomography -- here: model S20RTS (Ritsema et al., 2000) Conversion factor ~ 0.25 (Steinberger and Calderwood, 2006) – 4 % velocity variation ~ ~ 1 % density variation Depth 300 km

Densities inferred from S-wave tomography -- here: model S20RTS (Ritsema et al., 2000) Disregard velocity anomalies above 220 km depth Depth 200 km

Dynamic topography Spectral method (Hager and O’Connell, 1979,1981) for computation of flow and stresses NUVEL plate motions for surface boundary condition (results remain similar with free-slip and no-slip surface) Radial viscosity variation only RMS amplitude 1.07 km With other tomography models: 0.63 km [Grand] to 1.47 km [SB4L18, Masters et al., 2000] Viscosity profile from Steinberger and Calderwood (2006)

Dynamic topography RMS amplitude 1.07 km With other tomography models: 0.63 to 1.47 km Correlation 0.33 With other tomography models: 0.30 to 0.53 Residual topography RMS amplitude 0.52 km Other models: 0.47 to 0.64 km

Predicted “410” topography Thermal effect only RMS amplitude 4.81 km With other tomography models: 2.85 to 7.43 km

Predicted “410” topography Thermal effect only RMS amplitude 4.81 km With other tomography models: 2.85 to 7.43 km Observed “410” topography Gu, Dziewonski, Ekström (2003) RMS amplitude 5.24 km Other models: 3.90 to 5.24 km Correlation between different ”observed” models 0.10 to 0.44 Correlation 0.37 With computation based on other tomography models: 0.27 to 0.42

Predicted “660” topography Thermal effect only RMS amplitude 4.57 km With other tomography models: 2.69 to 5.59 km Observed “660” topography Gu, Dziewonski, Ekstrøm (2003) RMS amplitude 7.31 km Other models: 6.98 to 7.31 km Correlation between different “ observed” models 0.33 to 0.50 Correlation 0.35 With computation based on other tomography models: 0.06 to 0.35 Correlation with “410”: (-0.21 to with other models) Correlation with “410”: 0.24 (0.24 to 0.49 with other models)

Predicted TZ thickness variation Thermal effect only RMS amplitude 8.89 km With other tomography models: 5.05 to km Observed TZ thickness variation Gu, Dziewonski, Ekstrøm (2003) RMS amplitude 7.92 km Other models: 6.52 to 7.92 km Correlation between different “observed” models 0.30 to 0.41 Correlation 0.51 With computation based on other tomography models: 0.36 to 0.51

Dynamic topography – correlation with predicted TZ thickness variation –0.77 With other tomography models: to –0.89 Residual topography - correlation with observed TZ thickness variation –0.17 Other models: to 0.02

Summary of results with thermal effect only:

Predicted dynamic topography bigger than observed

Summary of results with thermal effect only: Predicted dynamic topography bigger than observed Predicted topography “660” smaller than observed

Summary of results with thermal effect only: Predicted dynamic topography bigger than observed Predicted topography “660” smaller than observed “410” and “660” topography correlation predicted negative, observed positive

Summary of results with thermal effect only: Predicted dynamic topography bigger than observed Predicted topography “660” smaller than observed “410” and “660” topography correlation predicted negative, observed positive TZ thickness and dyn. topography correlation predicted negative, obs. ~ zero

Summary of results with thermal effect only: Predicted dynamic topography bigger than observed Predicted topography “660” smaller than observed “410” and “660” topography correlation predicted negative, observed positive TZ thickness and dyn. topography correlation predicted negative, obs. ~ zero Correlations between predicted and observed models not too good

410 km: Phase boundary with positive Clapeyron slope Latent heat causes HIGHER temperature BELOW Phase boundary topography by latent heat effects (Christensen, 1998, EPSL) 660 km: Phase boundary with negative Clapeyron slope Latent heat causes LOWER temperature BELOW In both cases: Temperature gradient on upstream side Constant temperature on downstream side Boundary displaced in direction of flow

410 km: Phase boundary with positive Clapeyron slope Latent heat causes HIGHER temperature BELOW 660 km: Phase boundary with negative Clapeyron slope Latent heat causes LOWER temperature BELOW In both cases: Temperature gradient on upstream side Constant temperature on downstream side Boundary displaced in direction of flow Phase boundary topography by latent heat effects (Christensen, 1998, EPSL) L Q =     g c p ) = 3.8 km c p = specific heat capacity L Q = 4.4 km

For divariant phase change, amount of displacement depends on flow speed 410 km 660 km

For divariant phase change, amount of displacement depends on flow speed 410 km 660 km V= Z=

Computed flow speed – Depth 410 km Computed flow speed – Depth 660 km Density model inferred from S20RTS (Ritsema et al., 2000)

depth 660 km Phase boundary displacement due to latent heat– depth 410 km

“660” phase boundary displacement Thermal effect Latent heat effect Predicted topography “660” smaller than observed Increases by including latent heat effect (but not enough – note different scale!)

depth 660 km Phase boundary displacement due to latent heat– depth 410 km “410” and “660” topography correlation predicted negative, observed positive Latent heat effect displaces phase boundaries in same direction and hence contributes towards less negative correlation (but not enough – note different scale!)

depth 660 km Phase boundary displacement due to latent heat – depth 410 km Effect of latent heat effect on dynamic topography

Dynamic topography with thermal effect only Computed dynamic topography bigger than observed Including latent heat effect reduces dynamic topography (note opposite sense of color scale! - but not enough – note different scale)

Residual topography RMS 0.52 km Computed dynamic topography bigger than observed Including latent heat effect reduces dynamic topography Including latent heat effect generally somewhat increases correlations (but not by much) Correlation 0.34 Dynamic topography with computed phase boundaries RMS 1.02 km

Residual topography -- RMS 0.52 km Including latent heat effect generally somewhat increases correlations (but not by much) Replacing computed by observed phase boundary topography in the calculation of dynamic topography generally does not improve results Correlation 0.34 Dynamic topography with computed phase boundaries -- RMS 1.02 km Dynamic topography with observed phase boundaries -- RMS 0.98 km Correlation 0.26

Combine dynamic topography with sea level curve to compute inundation

Heine et al., in preparation Present-day

64 Ma

41 Ma

31 Ma

13 Ma

8 Ma

3 Ma

Dynamic topography on New Jersey Margin

Outlook: Understanding of present-day dynamic topography A multi-disciplinary approach is required, including, but not limited to the following aspects Improving both seismic and geodynamic models of phase boundary topography Improving mantle density models, in particular in the lithosphere More realistic and laterally variable rheology, in particular in the lithosphere Regional computations

Outlook II: Time-dependent dynamic topography and plate motions Past mantle structure cannot be fully recovered by simple backward- advection A global mantle reference frame through geologic times is required to relate computed uplift and subsidence to geological observations