Advertisement

A Comparison Between Satellite Gravity Data (Geosat) and Marine Gravity Data Measured in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica

  • Arnold L. Brodscholl
  • Ute C. Herzfeld
  • David T. Sandwell
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 110)

Abstract

The objective of this study is the analysis and comparison of gravimetric and bathymetric data from Antarctic Expeditions with R/V POLARSTERN and from satellite altimetry data from the Geosat Geodetic Mission, using methods from geostatistics and geophysical inverse theory. High-resolution gravity and bathymetric maps resulting from geostatistical evaluation of shipboard data reveal detailed structures of the Andenes Explora Escarpment at 10–20° W/70–72° S in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica. The structures of Wegener Canyon and other more prominent features appear with surprisingly good correlation also in the evaluation of Geosat data (which have much lesser resolution but cover larger areas). The good correspondence between the three data types is supported by results from spectral analysis and multivariate geostatistical analysis, indicating high covariation between satellite gravity data and shipboard gravity data and to a lesser extent bathymetric data, down to 20 km wavelength.

Keywords

Gravity Anomaly Gravity Data Ordinary Kriging Digital Terrain Model Variogram Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brodscholl, A.L., and Macedo, R. (1988), Seegravimatrie und Magnetik, Die Expedition ANTARKTIS VI mit FS “POLARSTERN” 1987/88, in: Fuetterer, D. K. (ed.), Ber. Polarforschung Rep. Polar Res., 58, Bremerhaven, 139–141.Google Scholar
  2. Herzfeld, U. C. (1989a), Geostatistical methods for evaluation of SEABEAM bathy-metric surveys: Case studies of Wegener Canyon, Antarctica, Marine Geology, 88, 83–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Herzfeld, U. C. (1989b), Variography of submarine morphology: Problems of deregularization, and cartographical implications, J. Math. Geol,21, 7, 693–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Herzfeld, U. C. (1990), Geostatistical software for evaluation of line survey data, applied to radio-echo soundings in glaciology. J. T. Hanley and D. F. Merriam (eds.), in: Microcomputer applications in geology, vol. II, Pergamon Press, New York, 119–136.Google Scholar
  5. Herzfeld, U.C., L. Moehlmann, and F. Niederjasper (1988), Bathymetrische Vermessungen mit dem Faechersonar SEABEAM und dem Schelfrandlot NBS, in: Fuetterer, D. K. (ed.), Die Expedition ANTARKTIS VI mit FS “POLARSTERN” 1987/88, Ber. Polarforschung Rep. Polar Res., 58, Bremerhaven 132–133.Google Scholar
  6. Hinz, K. and Krause, W. (1982), The continental margin of Queen Maud Land, Antarctica: Seismic sequences, structural elements, and geological development, Geol. Jahrb., Reihe E, 23:17–41.Google Scholar
  7. Journel, A. G. and C. J. Huijbregts (1989, 4th ed, 1st ed. 1978), Mining Geostatistics, Academic Press, London, 600 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Renard, V. and J.-P. Allenou (1979), Sea Beam, Multibeam echo-sounding in “Jean Charcot”, Description, evaluation, and first results, Int. Hydrograph. Rev., LVI 1, Monaco, 35–67.Google Scholar
  9. Marks, K.M., Mc Adoo, D.C., and Sandwell, D.T. (1991), Geosat GM data reveal new details of ocean floor, EOS Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 72,145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Matheron, G., (1963), Principles of Geostatistics, Econ. Geology, 58, 8,1246–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mc Adoo, D. C., R. W. Agreen, R. E. Ceney, B. C. Douglas, N. S. Doyle, C. Miller, and E. L. Timmerman (1990), Geosat/Geodetic Mission geophysical data records: Format and Contents, NOAA Tech. Memo., 10 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Miller, H., Brodscholl, A.L., et al., Gravimetrie und Magnetik, Miller, H., (ed.), in: Die Expedition ANTARKTIS VI mit FS “POLARSTERN” 1987/88, Ber. Polarforschung Rep. Polar Res., 58, Bremerhaven, in press.Google Scholar
  13. de Moustier, C. (1988), State of the art in swath bathymetry survey systems, G.K. Wolfe and P.Y. Chang (eds.) in: Current Practices and New Technology in Ocean Engineering, New York, 29–38.Google Scholar
  14. Parker, R.L. (1972), The Rapid Calculations of Potential Anomalies, Geophys. J. R. Astr. Soc., 31, 447–455.Google Scholar
  15. Sandwell, D.T., 1991, Antarctic Marine Gravity Field From High Density Satellite Altimetry, submitted to: Geophysical Journal International, May 30, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arnold L. Brodscholl
    • 2
  • Ute C. Herzfeld
    • 1
  • David T. Sandwell
    • 1
  1. 1.Scripps Institution of OceanographyUniversity of California San DiegoLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine ResearchBremerhavenGermany

Personalised recommendations