Группа авторов

Mantle Convection and Surface Expressions


Скачать книгу

1.4B), a combination of geoid, GIA, geodynamic constraints (Case C from Steinberger and Holme (2008)) and a joint inversion of GIA data including the Fennoscandian relaxation spectrum (Fig. 12 from Lau et al. (2016)). (B) Spectral slope vs. depth computed from the dimensionless temperature field of the geodynamic models. (C) Correlation at spherical harmonic degrees 1–4 between each of the geodynamic models and SEMUCB‐WM1.

      In all of the inversions shown in this chapter, we include a hierarchical hyperparameter that scales the covariance matrix. This parameter has the effect of smoothing the misfit function in model space, and the value of the hyperparameter is retrieved during the inversion, along with the other model parameters. The inversion methodology, described completely in Rudolph et al. (2015), uses a reversible‐jump Markov‐Chain Monte Carlo (rjMCMC) method (Green, 1995) to determine the model parameters (the depths and viscosity values of control points describing the piecewise‐linear viscosity profile) and the noise hyperparameter (Malinverno, 2002; Malinverno and Briggs, 2004). The rjMCMC method inherently includes an Occam factor, which penalizes overparameterization. Adding model parameters must be justified by a significant reduction in misfit. The result is a parsimonious parameterization of viscosity that balances data fit against model complexity. In general, incorporating additional data constraints or a priori information about mantle properties could lead to more complex solutions.

Schematic illustration of power spectra of four recent global VS tomographic models.

      We compared the character of heterogeneity in the geodynamic models with mantle tomography by calculating the power spectrum and spectral slope of each of the five geodynamic models. Because the depth‐variation of power in the geodynamic models does not have as straightforward an interpretation as the VS power spectra shown for tomographic models, we focus on the spectral slope of the geodynamic models, shown in Figure 1.4. We computed correlation coefficients between each of the geodynamic models and SEMUCB‐WM1, shown in Figure 1.4C.