J. Ebbing & N. Holzrichter – University of Kiel Johannes Bouman – DGFI Munich Ronny Stolz – IPHT Jena SPP Dynamic EarthPotsdam, 03/04 July 2014 Swarm &

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Geological Interpretation of Geophysical Magnetics  Geomagnetic reference field  Tectonics, sea-floor spreading and age of ocean basin  Near surface.
Advertisements

Introduction to Geomagnetism The magnetic record of Earth's history that is frozen into crustal rocks has provided, perhaps, the most important geophysical.
SPP 1257 Modelling of the Dynamic Earth from an Integrative Analysis of Potential Fields, Seismic Tomography and other Geophysical Data M. Kaban, A. Baranov.
A Comparison of topographic effect by Newton’s integral and high degree spherical harmonic expansion – Preliminary Results YM Wang, S. Holmes, J Saleh,
Problem 1 The corrections can be larger than the anomaly Stat.Time T Dist. (m) Elev. (m) Reading (dial units) Base reading at time T Drift corr’d anom.
Annihilators at Mars: Are there alternative but reasonable magnetization distributions in the Martian crust that explain the MGS magnetic field observations?
Martian and terrestrial Satellite Magnetic Data: Crustal magnetization and downward continuation models Kathy Whaler University of Edinburgh, UK GEST Visiting.
Dynamic topography, phase boundary topography and latent-heat release Bernhard Steinberger Center for Geodynamics, NGU, Trondheim, Norway.
Coestimating models of the large-scale internal, external, and corresponding induced Hermean magnetic fields Michael Purucker and Terence Sabaka Raytheon.
PIVETTA T., BRAITENBERG C. Dipartimento di Geoscienze, Università di Trieste, Italy, THE LITHOSPHERE STRUCTURE BENEATH.
The Four Candidate Earth Explorer Core Missions Consultative Workshop October 1999, Granada, Spain, Revised by CCT GOCE S 43 Science and.
GreatBreak: Grand Challenges in Geodynamics. Characteristics of a Desirable Geodynamic Model Ties together observational constraints on current state.
The Four Candidate Earth Explorer Core Missions consultative Workshop October 1999, Granada, Spain, Revised by CCT GOCE S 23 The gravity.
Gravity: Gravity anomalies. Earth gravitational field. Isostasy. Moment density dipole. Practical issues.
Outline  Derivatives and transforms of potential fields  First and second vertical derivatives  Convolutional operators  Fourier approach  Reduction.
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.
MTR, swarm E2E study, Nov 11, 2003, DSRI Copenhagen, nio #1 7-Sep-15 swarm End-To-End Mission Performance Study Mid Term Review The swarm E2E Consortium.
Kick off meeting, swarm E2E study, nio #1 8-Sep-15 Development Approach Task 1: Industrial Module –to be used by industry for their system simulation –Output:
Icebase: A proposed suborbital survey to map geothermal heat flux under an ice sheet Michael Purucker SGT at Planetary Geodynamics Lab, Goddard Space Flight.
TPW unplugged: Absolute plate motions and true polar wander in the absence of hotspot tracks, 320 — 130 Ma Bernhard Steinberger In collaboration with Trond.
A spherical Fourier approach to estimate the Moho from GOCE data Mirko Reguzzoni 1, Daniele Sampietro 2 2 POLITECNICO DI MILANO, POLO REGIONALE DI COMO.
Testing of two variants of the harmonic inversion method on the territory of the eastern part of Slovakia.
Secular variation in Germany from repeat station data and a recent global field model Monika Korte and Vincent Lesur Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, German Research.
GOCE OBSERVATIONS FOR DETECTING UNKNOWN TECTONIC FEATURES BRAITENBERG C. (1), MARIANI P. (1), REGUZZONI M. (2), USSAMI N. (3) (1)Department of Geosciences,
Outline Magnetic dipole moment Magnetization Magnetic induction
G. Marquart Gravity Effect of Plumes Geodynamik Workshop, Hamburg, Modeling Gravity Anomalies Caused by Mantle Plumes Gabriele Marquart Mantle.
GEOSCIENCES UASCIENCE T HE U NIVERSITY OF Arizona ® C. G. Chase Department of Geosciences University of Arizona, David Coblentz & Aviva Sussman LANL Geoid.
Testing of the harmonic inversion method on the territory of the eastern part of Slovakia.
Numerical aspects of the omission errors due to limited grid size in geoid computations Yan Ming Wang National Geodetic Survey, USA VII Hotine-Marussi.
Swarm ASM-VFM meeting 9-10 Apr 2015ESTEC (NL) Ideas for improving the disturbance model or Welcome to the Null-Space! Nils Olsen, Lars Tøffner-Clausen,
Gravimetry Geodesy Rotation
Lijun Liu Seismo Lab, Caltech Dec. 18, 2006 Inferring Mantle Structure in the Past ---Adjoint method in mantle convection.
Parameters : Temperature profile Bulk iron and olivine weight fraction Pressure gradient. Modeling of the Martian mantle Recently taken into account :
International Symposium on Gravity, Geoid and Height Systems GGHS 2012, Venice, Italy 1 GOCE data for local geoid enhancement Matija Herceg Per Knudsen.
Full Resolution Geoid from GOCE Gradients for Ocean Modeling Matija Herceg & Per Knudsen Department of Geodesy DTU Space living planet symposium 28 June.
C.C.Tscherning, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. Improvement of Least-Squares Collocation error estimates using local GOCE Tzz signal standard.
Recent Investigations Towards Achieving a One Centimeter Geoid Daniel R. Roman & Dru A. Smith U.S. National Geodetic Survey GGG 2000, Session 9 The Challenge.
Study on the Impact of Combined Magnetic and Electric Field Analysis and of Ocean Circulation Effects on Swarm Mission Performance by S. Vennerstrom, E.
Study of an Improved Comprehensive Magnetic Field Inversion Analysis for Swarm MTR, E2Eplus Study Work performed by Nils Olsen, Terence J. Sabaka, Luis.
ESA living planet symposium Bergen Combination of GRACE and GOCE in situ data for high resolution regional gravity field modeling M. Schmeer 1,
GEO 5/6690 Geodynamics 24 Oct 2014 © A.R. Lowry 2014 Read for Wed 29 Oct: T&S Last Time: Brittle-field rheology The “Seismogenic Zone” is observed.
Mayer-Gürr et al.ESA Living Planet, Bergen Torsten Mayer-Gürr, Annette Eicker, Judith Schall Institute of Geodesy and Geoinformation University.
Sensitivity Analysis and Building Laterally-Variable Ocean Conductivity Grid 1 N. R. Schnepf (UoC/CIRES) C. Manoj (UoC/CIRES) A. V. Kuvshinov (ETHZ)
ESA Living Planet Symposium 28 June - 2 July 2010, Bergen, Norway A. Albertella, R. Rummel, R. Savcenko, W. Bosch, T. Janjic, J.Schroeter, T. Gruber, J.
4.Results (1)Potential coefficients comparisons Fig.3 FIR filtering(Passband:0.005~0.1HZ) Fig.4 Comparison with ESA’s models (filter passband:0.015~0.1HZ)
Tom Wilson, Department of Geology and Geography Environmental and Exploration Geophysics I tom.h.wilson Department of Geology and.
The OC in GOCE: A review The Gravity field and Steady-state Ocean Circulation Experiment Marie-Hélène RIO.
An oceanographic assessment of the GOCE geoid models accuracy S. Mulet 1, M-H. Rio 1, P. Knudsen 2, F. Siegesmund 3, R. Bingham 4, O. Andersen 2, D. Stammer.
GOCE GRADIENT TENSOR CHARACTERIZATION OF THE COUPLED PARANÁ (SOUTH AMERICA) AND ETENDEKA (AFRICA) MAGMATIC PROVINCES Patrizia Mariani and Carla Braitenberg.
Imaging Earth’s interior from GOCE – and beyond? Isabelle Panet Institut National de l’Information Géographique et Forestière, Laboratoire de Recherche.
ESA Living Planet Symposium, 29 June 2010, Bergen (Norway) GOCE data analysis: the space-wise approach and the space-wise approach and the first space-wise.
Geology 5660/6660 Applied Geophysics 30 Mar 2016
Azimuthal anisotropy layering in the Pacific upper mantle
Introduction to Geomagnetism
Estimating susceptibility and magnetization within the Earth’s terrestrial crust Michael Purucker (SGT at GSFC/NASA, USA) and Suzanne McEnroe (NTNU, Norway)
Nils Holzrichter, Jörg Ebbing
Session 4: GOCE for Solid Earth
Swarm ongoing studies: wider context
Geodesy & Crustal Deformation
Global crustal models for magnetic applications
By C. Haeger1,2, M. Kaban1, B. Chen3 & A. Petrunin1,4 June 15, 2017
Chairs: H. Sünkel, P. Visser
New "quite time" concept: application to Champ lithospheric field modelling Nils Olsen, Jesper Gjerløv & Co.
Outline Derivatives and transforms of potential fields
Introduction to Geomagnetism
Daniel Rieser, Christian Pock, Torsten Mayer-Guerr
Session 5: Higher level products (Internal)
Introduction to Earth Structure
Laser Interferometry for a future GRACE follow-on mission
Presentation transcript:

J. Ebbing & N. Holzrichter – University of Kiel Johannes Bouman – DGFI Munich Ronny Stolz – IPHT Jena SPP Dynamic EarthPotsdam, 03/04 July 2014 Swarm & GOCE to reveal the dynamic and static coupling within the lithosphere

Modelling Concept Crust Moho LAB Lithospheric mantle Asthenospheric mantle 1315°C

Moho LAB Lithospheric mantle Asthenospheric mantle 1315°C Crust SWARM 580°C Curie temperature isotherm

Moho LAB Lithospheric mantle Asthenospheric mantle 1315°C Crust SWARM 580°C Curie temperature isothermΔρ Gravity gradients (GOCE)

Moho (GOCE,GRACE) Δρ GOCE gradients ρ(T,C) GOCE gradients ρ(T,C) Δρ Gravity gradients (GOCE) LAB Lithospheric mantle Asthenospheric mantle 1315°C Crust 580°C Curie temperature isotherm SWARM Gravity, Geoid ρ(T,C) Gravity, Geoid ρ(T,C)

GOCE satellite altitude / Earth’s surface satellite altitude is smooth Downward continuation enhances signal power & details

Saudi Arabia Height 0 km10 km260 km Signal RMS 5.1 E4.1 E0.3 E Model error 1.3 E0.9 E0.4 mE Omission error 83.5 E8.1 E0.2 mE V ZZ degree RMS h = 0 & 260 km Downward continuation also amplifies noise Effective resolution of data does not change Omission error becomes much larger (mainly high frequency topography) Saudi Arabia Height 0 km10 km260 km Signal RMS 5.1 E4.1 E0.3 E GOCO03S V ZZ signal & error, L = 225 For model inversion it is probably best to use data close to their original point of acquisition. GOCE satellite altitude / Earth’s surface

Inversion: Gz >90 km Z 0 =30 km  = 350 kg/m 3 Moho depth by gravity inversion

- satellite residuals - Inversion: Gz >90 km Z 0 =30 km  = 350 kg/m 3

Inversion Gzz=Full Z 0 =30 km  = 350 kg/m 3 Moho depth by satellite gravity gradient inversion

Sensitivity of satellite gradients Z. Martinec 2013 Sensitivity kernels for spherical gravity gradients

Improvement of Lithospheric Field Model... with present satellites Ørsted and CHAMP... N = 60, resolution: 670 km... and with Swarm N = 133, resolution: 300 km Magnetic field of Earth’s crust radial component at 10 km altitude Before Ørsted... N = 30, resolution: 1330 km

Poisson’s relation Magnetization of a tesseroid. The formula to calculate gravity gradient tensor of a spherical prism (Asgharzadeh et al., 2007), along with adaptive integration method (Li et al., 2011) was used in software package called tesseroids- 1.1 (Uieda et al., 2011; Uieda, 2013). By Poisson’s relation (Blakely, 1995) the magnetic field is mathematically equivalent to the gradient of a gravity field. Therefore, tesseroids was modified to calculate a magnetic field. To this end the Earth crust is modelled by spherical prisms with prescribed magnetic susceptibility and remanent magnetization. Induced magnetizations are then derived from product of the chosen main field model (such as International Geomagnetic Reference Field) and the corresponding tesseroid susceptibilities. Remanent magnetization vectors are directly set. Spherical modelling tools

Numerical methods in comparison (Baykiev 2014) TesseroidsSpherical caps Input: Crust1.0 Susceptibility of the whole crust – 0.04 SI Ambient field – IGRF11 Grid resolution – 2x2 deg Grid altitude – 400 km (also in Purucker et al. 2002)

Interpretation of magnetic anomalies Gradients along track can be recovered from Swarm data (Kotsiaros Olsen 2013) Invariants of gravity and magnetic field will help on polar regions to avoid coordinate system dependency => Normalized source strength can be used to describe lithospheric magnetization

A study area Why Greenland? Little geophysical data available Mass estimates of changing ice sheets necessary for climate models Coupling with physical state of lithosphere essential to estimate dynamic behaviour Role of Iceland hotspot track?

Summary Analysis of satellite gravity data: lithospheric structure Ice thickness vs. crustal thickness dynamic vs. static components Analysis of satellite magnetic data: Characterization of magnetic crustal thickness Normalized source strength for describing tectonic domains  Interpretation with DTU & GEUS  Implications for rheology Technical challenges: Magnetic gradients along the track (with DTU) Tesseroids for complete magnetic tensor modelling (with NGU) Implementation of invariant analysis in inverse and forward modelling