Advertisement

Dynamic Topography as Reflected in the Global Gravity Field

  • Mikhail K. Kaban
  • Peter Schwintzer
  • Christoph Reigber

Summary

The long-wavelength part of non-isostatic topography is supposed to be generated by mantle dynamics and is up to now not well studied. In order to separate the dynamic part from the residual topography (that part of the Earth's topography which is not explained by the crustal model providing isostatic compensation) a correlation analysis is performed between the residual topography and long-wavelength isostatic gravity anomalies. It is found that the correlation between these quantities is positive for spatial wavelengths larger than 4000 km. The resulting correlated part of residual topography is regarded to represent the dynamic topography. Its amplitude was estimated to range from −0.4 to 0.5 km and is on the lower limit of what was estimated from a direct modelling of mantle convection. The calculated dynamic topography may be used as a strong constraint in further numerical simulations of mantle dynamics.

Key words

dynamic topography isostatic gravity anomalies global gravity field model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Čadek O, Fleitout L (2003) Effect of lateral viscosity variations in the top 300 km on the geoid and dynamic topography. Geophys J Int 152: 566–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hager BH (1983) Global isostatic geoid anomalies for plate and boundary layer models of the lithosphere. Earth Planet Sci Lett 63: 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hager BH, Richards MA (1989) Long-wavelength variations in Earth's geoid, physical models and dynamical implications. Philos Trans R Soc London A 328: 309–327.Google Scholar
  4. Heiskanen W, Moritz H (1967) Physical geodesy, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  5. Kaban MK, Schwintzer P (2001) Oceanic upper mantle structure from experimental scaling of Vs and density at different depths. Geophys J Int 147: 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kaban MK, Schwintzer P, Artemieva IM, Mooney WD (2003a) Density of the continental roots: compositional and thermal contributions. Earth Planet Sci Lett 209: 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kaban MK, Schwintzer P, Reigber Ch (2003b) A new isostatic model of the lithosphere and gravity field. Journal of Geodesy, submitted.Google Scholar
  8. Pari G, Peltier WR (2000) Subcontinental mantle dynamics: A further analysis based on the joint constraints of dynamic surface topography and free-air gravity. J Geoph Res 105: 5635–5662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pratt JH (1858) The deflection of the plumb-line in India and the compensatory effect of a deficiency of matter below the Himalaya mountains. Philos Trans R So London, Vol. CXLIX: 745–778.Google Scholar
  10. Reigber Ch, Balmino G, Schwintzer P, Biancale R, Bode A, Lemoine J-M, König R, Loyer S, Neumayer H, Marty J-C, Barthelmes F, Perosanz F, Zhu SY (2002) A high-quality global gravity field model from CHAMP GPS tracking data and accelerometry (EIGEN-IS). Geophys Res Lett 29(14): 10.1029, GL015064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Steinberger B, Schmeling H, Marquart G (2001) Large-scale lithospheric stress field and topography induced by global mantle circulation. Earth Planet Sci Lett 186: 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mikhail K. Kaban
    • 1
  • Peter Schwintzer
    • 1
  • Christoph Reigber
    • 1
  1. 1.Department 1 ‘Geodesy and Remote Sensing'GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam (GFZ)PotsdamGenmany

Personalised recommendations