A Comparison of Global Lithospheric Field Models Derived from Satellite Magnetic Data

  • Kumar Hemant
  • Stefan Maus


Satellite missions over more than three decades, have added immensely to our understanding of the geomagnetic field. Here, we give a comparison of the lithospheric field models, prepared by various workers from POGO, Magsat, Ørsted and CHAMP satellite data. Mapping the global lithospheric anomalies requires careful reductions which include the main field, its secular variation (SV) and corrections for the external magnetospheric and ionospheric contributions to the data recorded by satellite. The discrepancies between the various maps are mainly due to differences in the rigor with which the data is processed, in the selection of the magnetically quiet periods and in the algorithms used to estimate the spherical harmonic coefficients of scalar potential or the total intensity of the field. The models also strongly differ in how the magnetospheric and ionospheric contributions have been detected and eliminated in order to correct the equatorial, mid-latitude and polar latitude data. We plot the anomaly of the total intensity of the field at 450 km altitude (except ALP94 which is at 400 km).

Key words

Power spectra filtering lithospheric field models 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arkani-Hamed J, Langel RA, Purucker ME (1994) Magnetic anomaly maps of Earth derived from POGO and Magsat data. J Geophvs Res 99: 24075–24090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cain JC, Schmitz DR, Muth L (1984) Small-scale features in the earth’s magnetic field observed by Magsat. J Geophys Res 89: 1070–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cain JC, Wang Z, Kluth C, Schmitz DR (1989a) Derivation of a geomagnetic model to n = 63. Geophys J 97: 431–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cain JC, Wang Z, Schmitz DR, Meyer J (1989b) The geomagnetic spectrum for 1980 and core-crustal separation. Geophys J 97: 443–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen Y, and Achache J (1990) New global vector anomaly maps derived from Magsat data. J Geophys Res 95: 10783–10800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Langel RA (1990) Global magnetic anomaly maps derived from POGO spacecraft data. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 62: 208–230.Google Scholar
  7. Maus S, Rother M, Holme R, Luhr H, Olsen N, Haak V (2002) First CHAMP satellite magnetic data resolve uncertainty about strength of the lithospheric magnetic field. Geophys Res Letts (in press)Google Scholar
  8. Olsen N (2001) A model of the Geomagnetic Main Field and its Secular Variation for Epoch 2000 Estimated from Ørsted Data. Geophys J Int(in press)Google Scholar
  9. Ravat D, Langel RA, Purucker M, Arkani-Hamed J, Alsdorf DE (1995) Global vector and scalar Magsat magnetic anomaly maps. J Geophys Res 100: 20111–20136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sabaka TJ, Olsen N, Langel RA (2000) A comprehensive model of the near-Earth Magnetic Field: Phase 3. NASA/TM-2000–209894, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland.Google Scholar
  11. Schmitz DR, Meyer J, Cain JC (1989) Modelling the Earth’s geomagnetic field to high degree and order. Geophys J R Astr Soc 97: 421–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kumar Hemant
    • 1
  • Stefan Maus
    • 1
  1. 1.Division 2.3GeoForschungsZentrumPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations