Book contents
- Applications of Data Assimilation and Inverse Problems in the Earth Sciences
- Series page
- Applications of Data Assimilation and Inverse Problems in the Earth Sciences
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Introduction
- Part II ‘Fluid’ Earth Applications: From the Surface to the Space
- Part III ‘Solid’ Earth Applications: From the Surface to the Core
- 11 Trans-Dimensional Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods Applied to Geochronology and Thermochronology
- 12 Inverse Problems in Lava Dynamics
- 13 Data Assimilation for Real-Time Shake-Mapping and Prediction of Ground Shaking in Earthquake Early Warning
- 14 Global Seismic Tomography Using Time Domain Waveform Inversion
- 15 Solving Larger Seismic Inverse Problems with Smarter Methods
- 16 Joint and Constrained Inversion as Hypothesis Testing Tools
- 17 Crustal Structure and Moho Depth in the Tibetan Plateau from Inverse Modelling of Gravity Data
- 18 Geodetic Inversions and Applications in Geodynamics
- 19 Data Assimilation in Geodynamics: Methods and Applications
- 20 Geodynamic Data Assimilation: Techniques and Observables to Construct and Constrain Time-Dependent Earth Models
- 21 Understanding and Predicting Geomagnetic Secular Variation via Data Assimilation
- 22 Pointwise and Spectral Observations in Geomagnetic Data Assimilation: The Importance of Localization
- Index
- References
22 - Pointwise and Spectral Observations in Geomagnetic Data Assimilation: The Importance of Localization
from Part III - ‘Solid’ Earth Applications: From the Surface to the Core
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 June 2023
Book contents
- Applications of Data Assimilation and Inverse Problems in the Earth Sciences
- Series page
- Applications of Data Assimilation and Inverse Problems in the Earth Sciences
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Introduction
- Part II ‘Fluid’ Earth Applications: From the Surface to the Space
- Part III ‘Solid’ Earth Applications: From the Surface to the Core
- 11 Trans-Dimensional Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods Applied to Geochronology and Thermochronology
- 12 Inverse Problems in Lava Dynamics
- 13 Data Assimilation for Real-Time Shake-Mapping and Prediction of Ground Shaking in Earthquake Early Warning
- 14 Global Seismic Tomography Using Time Domain Waveform Inversion
- 15 Solving Larger Seismic Inverse Problems with Smarter Methods
- 16 Joint and Constrained Inversion as Hypothesis Testing Tools
- 17 Crustal Structure and Moho Depth in the Tibetan Plateau from Inverse Modelling of Gravity Data
- 18 Geodetic Inversions and Applications in Geodynamics
- 19 Data Assimilation in Geodynamics: Methods and Applications
- 20 Geodynamic Data Assimilation: Techniques and Observables to Construct and Constrain Time-Dependent Earth Models
- 21 Understanding and Predicting Geomagnetic Secular Variation via Data Assimilation
- 22 Pointwise and Spectral Observations in Geomagnetic Data Assimilation: The Importance of Localization
- Index
- References
Summary
Abstract: Geomagnetic data assimilation aims at constraining the state of the geodynamo working at the Earth’s deep interior by sparse magnetic observations at and above the Earth’s surface. Due to difficulty separating the different magnetic field sources in the observations, spectral models of the geomagnetic field are generally used as inputs for data assimilation. However, the assimilation of raw pointwise observations can be relevant within certain configurations, specifically with paleomagnetic and historical geomagnetic data. Covariance localisation, which is a key ingredient to the assimilation performance in an ensemble framework, is relatively unexplored, and differs with respect to spectral and pointwise observations. This chapter introduces the main characteristics of geomagnetic data and magnetic field models, and explores the role of model and observation covariances and localisation in typical assimilation set-ups, focusing on the use of 3D dynamo simulations as the background model.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Amit, H., Leonhardt, R., and Wicht, J. (2010). Polarity reversals from paleomagnetic observations and numerical dynamo simulations. Space Science Reviews, 155(1), 293–335.Google Scholar
Amit, H., Terra-Nova, F., Lézin, M., and Trindade, R. I. (2021). Non-monotonic growth and motion of the south Atlantic anomaly. Earth, Planets and Space, 73(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. L., and Anderson, S. L. (1999). A Monte Carlo implementation of the nonlinear filtering problem to produce ensemble assimilations and forecasts. Monthly Weather Review, 127(12), 2741–58.Google Scholar
Arneitz, P., Leonhardt, R., Schnepp, E. et al. (2017). The HISTMAG database: Combining historical, archaeomagnetic and volcanic data. Geophysical Journal International, 210(3), 1347–59.Google Scholar
Aubert, J. (2015). Geomagnetic forecasts driven by thermal wind dynamics in the Earth’s core. Geophysical Journal International, 203(3), 1738–51.Google Scholar
Aubert, J., and Finlay, C. C. (2019). Geomagnetic jerks and rapid hydromagnetic waves focusing at Earth’s core surface. Nature Geoscience, 12(5), 393–8.Google Scholar
Aubert, J., Finlay, C. C., and Fournier, A. (2013). Bottom-up control of geomagnetic secular variation by the Earth’s inner core. Nature, 502(7470), 219–23.Google Scholar
Aubert, J., Gastine, T., and Fournier, A. (2017). Spherical convective dynamos in the rapidly rotating asymptotic regime. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 813, 558–93.Google Scholar
Aubert, J., Labrosse, S., and Poitou, C. (2009). Modelling the palaeo-evolution of the geodynamo. Geophysical Journal International, 179(3), 1414–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerenzung, J., Holschneider, M., Wicht, J., Lesur, V., and Sanchez, S. (2020). The Kalmag model as a candidate for IGRF-13. Earth, Planets and Space, 72(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Barrois, O., Hammer, M., Finlay, C., Martin, Y., and Gillet, N. (2018). Assimilation of ground and satellite magnetic measurements: Inference of core surface magnetic and velocity field changes. Geophysical Journal International, 215(1), 695–712.Google Scholar
Braginsky, S. I., and Roberts, P. H. (1995). Equations governing convection in Earth’s core and the geodynamo. Geophysical & Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, 79(1–4), 1–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. C., Donadini, F., Korte, M. et al. (2015). Geomagia50. v3: 1. General structure and modifications to the archeological and volcanic database. Earth, Planets and Space, 67(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Bullard, E. C., and Gellman, H. (1954). Homogeneous dynamos and terrestrial magnetism. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A, 247(928), 213–78.Google Scholar
Burgers, G., Jan van Leeuwen, P., and Evensen, G. (1998). Analysis scheme in the Ensemble Kalman Filter. Monthly Weather Review, 126(6), 1719–24.Google Scholar
Christensen, U., and Wicht, J. (2015). Numerical dynamo simulations. In Schubert, G., ed., Treatise on Geophysics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 245–77.Google Scholar
Christensen, U. R., Aubert, J., and Hulot, G. (2010). Conditions for Earth-like geodynamo models. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 296(3), 487–96.Google Scholar
Constable, C. G., Parker, R. L., and Stark, P. B. (1993). Geomagnetic field models incorporating frozen-flux constraints. Geophysical Journal International, 113(2), 419–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evensen, G. (1994). Sequential data assimilation with a nonlinear quasi-geostrophic model using Monte Carlo methods to forecast error statistics. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 99(C5), 10143–62.Google Scholar
Finlay, C. C. (2008). Historical variation of the geomagnetic axial dipole. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 170(1–2), 1–14.Google Scholar
Finlay, C. C., Kloss, C., Olsen, N. et al. (2020). The CHAOS-7 geomagnetic field model and observed changes in the South Atlantic anomaly. Earth, Planets and Space, 72(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fournier, A., Hulot, G., Jault, D. et al. (2010). An introduction to data assimilation and predictability in geomagnetism. Space Science Reviews, 155(1–4), 247–91.Google Scholar
Fournier, A., Nerger, L., and Aubert, J. (2013). An ensemble Kalman filter for the time dependent analysis of the geomagnetic field. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 14(10), 4035–43.Google Scholar
Fratter, I., Léger, J.-M., Bertrand, F. et al. (2016). Swarm absolute scalar magnetometers first in-orbit results. Acta Astronautica, 121, 76–87.Google Scholar
Friis-Christensen, E., Lühr, H., and Hulot, G. (2006). Swarm: A constellation to study the earth’s magnetic field. Earth, Planets and Space, 58(4), 351–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillet, N., Gerick, F., Angappan, R., and Jault, D. (2021). A dynamical prospective on interannual geomagnetic field changes. Surveys in Geophysics, 43, 71–105.Google Scholar
Gottwald, G. A., and Majda, A. (2013). A mechanism for catastrophic filter divergence in data assimilation for sparse observation networks. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 20(5), 705–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gubbins, D., and Zhang, K. (1993). Symmetry properties of the dynamo equations for palaeomagnetism and geomagnetism. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 75(4), 225–41.Google Scholar
Gwirtz, K., Morzfeld, M., Kuang, W., and Tangborn, A. (2021). A testbed for geomagnetic data assimilation. Geophysical Journal International, 227(3), 2180–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamill, T. M., Whitaker, J. S., and Snyder, C. (2001). Distance-dependent filtering of background error covariance estimates in an ensemble Kalman filter. Monthly Weather Review, 129(11), 2776–90.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huder, L., Gillet, N., Finlay, C. C., Hammer, M. D., and Tchoungui, H. (2020). Cov-obs. x2: 180 years of geomagnetic field evolution from ground-based and satellite observations. Earth, Planets and Space, 72(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Jackson, A., Jonkers, A. R., and Walker, M. R. (2000). Four centuries of geomagnetic secular variation from historical records. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical. Physical and Engineering Sciences, 358(1768), 957–90.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. L., and Constable, C. G. (1997). The time-averaged geomagnetic field: global and regional biases for 0–5 Ma. Geophysical Journal International, 131(3), 643–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonkers, A. R. T. (2003). Earth’s Magnetism in the Age of Sail. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalman, R. E. (1960). A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Journal of basic Engineering, 82(1), 35–45.Google Scholar
Korte, M., and Constable, C. (2008). Spatial and temporal resolution of millennial scale geomagnetic field models. Advances in Space Research, 41(1), 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korte, M., Donadini, F., and Constable, C. (2009). Geomagnetic field for 0–3 ka: 2. A new series of time-varying global models. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 10 (6).Google Scholar
Korte, M., Constable, C., Donadini, F., and Holme, R. (2011). Reconstructing the Holocene geomagnetic field. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 312(3–4), 497–505.Google Scholar
Kuang, W., Tangborn, A., Wei, Z., and Sabaka, T. (2009). Constraining a numerical geodynamo model with 100 years of surface observations. Geophysical Journal International, 179(3), 1458–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuang, W., Wei, Z., Holme, R., and Tangborn, A. (2010). Prediction of geomagnetic field with data assimilation: a candidate secular variation model for igrf-11. Earth, Planets and Space, 62(10), 775–85.Google Scholar
Lhuillier, F., Fournier, A., Hulot, G., and Aubert, J. (2011). The geomagnetic secular-variation timescale in observations and numerical dynamo models. Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L09306.Google Scholar
Licht, A., Hulot, G., Gallet, Y., and Thébault, E. (2013). Ensembles of low degree archeomagnetic field models for the past three millennia. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 224, 38–67.Google Scholar
Liu, D., Tangborn, A., and Kuang, W. (2007). Observing system simulation experiments in geomagnetic data assimilation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 112, B08103.Google Scholar
Livermore, P. W., Finlay, C. C., and Bayliff, M. (2020). Recent north magnetic pole acceleration towards Siberia caused by flux lobe elongation. Nature Geoscience, 13(5), 387–91.Google Scholar
Mandea, M., and Chambodut, A. (2020). Geomagnetic field processes and their implications for space weather. Surveys in Geophysics, 41(6), 1611–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matzka, J., Chulliat, A., Mandea, M., Finlay, C., and Qamili, E. (2010). Geomagnetic observations for main field studies: from ground to space. Space Science Reviews, 155(1), 29–64.Google Scholar
Merril, R. T., McElhinny, M., and McFadden, P. L., eds. (1996). The Magnetic Field of the Earth, vol. 63. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Minami, T., Nakano, S., Lesur, V. et al. (2020). A candidate secular variation model for IGRF-13 based on MHD dynamo simulation and 4DEnVar data assimilation. Earth, Planets and Space, 72, 136.Google Scholar
Morzfeld, M., Fournier, A., and Hulot, G. (2017). Coarse predictions of dipole reversals by lowdimensional modeling and data assimilation. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 262, 8–27.Google Scholar
Panovska, S., Korte, M., and Constable, C. (2019). One hundred thousand years of geomagnetic field evolution. Reviews of Geophysics, 57(4), 1289–337.Google Scholar
Reda, J., Fouassier, D., Isac, A. et al. (2011). Improvements in geomagnetic observatory data quality. In Mandea, M. and Korte, M., eds., Geomagnetic Observations and Models. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 127–48.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. H., and King, E. M. (2013). On the genesis of the Earth’s magnetism. Reports on Progress in Physics, 76(9), 096801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ropp, G., Lesur, V., Baerenzung, J., and Holschneider, M. (2020). Sequential modelling of the earth’s core magnetic field. Earth, Planets and Space, 72(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Sanchez, S. (2016). Assimilation of geomagnetic data into dynamo models, an archeomagnetic study. PhD thesis, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris (IPGP), France.Google Scholar
Sanchez, S., Fournier, A., Aubert, J., Cosme, E., and Gallet, Y. (2016). Modelling the archaeomagnetic field under spatial constraints from dynamo simulations: a resolution analysis. Geophysical Journal International, 207, 983–1002.Google Scholar
Sanchez, S., Wicht, J., and Bärenzung, J. (2020). Predictions of the geomagnetic secular variation based on the ensemble sequential assimilation of geomagnetic field models by dynamo simulations. Earth, Planets and Space, 72(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Sanchez, S., Wicht, J., Bärenzung, J., and Holschneider, M. (2019). Sequential assimilation of geomagnetic observations: perspectives for the reconstruction and prediction of core dynamics. Geophysical Journal International, 217(2), 1434–50.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, N., Jault, D., Nataf, H.-C., and Fournier, A. (2017). Turbulent geodynamo simulations: a leap towards Earth’s core. Geophysical Journal International, 211(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tangborn, A., and Kuang, W. (2015). Geodynamo model and error parameter estimation using geomagnetic data assimilation. Geophysical Journal International, 200(1), 664–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tangborn, A., and Kuang, W. (2018). Impact of archeomagnetic field model data on modern era geomagnetic forecasts. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 276, 2–9.Google Scholar
Tangborn, A., Kuang, W., Sabaka, T. J., and Yi, C. (2021). Geomagnetic secular variation forecast using the NASA GEMS ensemble Kalman filter: A candidate SV model for IGRF-13. Earth, Planets and Space, 73(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Valet, J.-P., and Fournier, A. (2016). Deciphering records of geomagnetic reversals. Reviews of Geophysics, 54(2), 410–46.Google Scholar