1 / 23

The Earth in three dimensions

The Earth in three dimensions. From seismology to composition and temperature. Is this the only model compatible with the data?. If we project some chosen model onto the null space of the forward operator. Then add it to original model. The same data fit is guaranteed!. Deal et al. JGR 1999.

erelah
Download Presentation

The Earth in three dimensions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Earth in three dimensions From seismology to composition and temperature

  2. Is this the only model compatible with the data? If we project some chosen model onto the null space of the forward operator Then add it to original model. The same data fit is guaranteed! Deal et al. JGR 1999

  3. Seismic tomography (Masters et al., 2000)

  4. Radial variation of dlnVs/dlnVp most popular diagnostic Robertson and Woodhouse, 1996 ‘’The observations of RW96 and SD97 reinforce the conclusion that we should seek a compositional interpretation of tomographically observed velocity anomalies in the lower mantle’’ Stacey, 1998.

  5. Interpretation: ratios Vp=[(K+4/3G)/r] Vs=[G/r] The ratio dlnVs/dlnVp=2.25 if the only variation is in G for a Poisson solid. This is also observed in laboratory experiments for thermal variations.

  6. Average ratios of dlnVs/dlnVp are not useful if more than one cause is at play. It can best give a qualitative indication. The full histogram gives statistical evidence of compositional anomalies, but they can not be located in the Earth

  7. Direct inversion Example of a descending slab Using lnVp/T=-1.9x10-5, lnVs/T=-3.0x10-5 lnVp/X =0.056 and lnVs/X=-0.025, X is the perovskite content Taking dlnVp=0.003 and dlnVs=0.006, we find dT=-190K and dX –0.011 which is -1.1% perovskite variation, as expected

  8. Probabilistic tomography

  9. Averaged and gravity filtered models over 15x15 degree equal area caps • Likelihoods in each cap are nearly Gaussian • Most likely model (above one standard deviation) • Uniform uncertainties • dlnVs=0.12 % • dlnVΦ=0.26 % • dlnρ=0.48 %

  10. Likelihood of correlation between seismic parameters Evidence for chemical heterogeneity Vs-VF

  11. Incompressibility: KS=-V(P/V)S Thermal expansivity a=-1/r(r/T)P Grüneisen parameter (P/T)V=gCV/V Anderson-Grüneisen : d=-1/aKs(Ks/T)P Anderson-Grüneisen : e=-1/aKs(G/T)P d = Ks’-1-g+q Ks’~4, q~1, g~1, e>6 dlnr/dlnVs~0.2

  12. Likelihood of rms-amplitude of seismic parameters Evidence for chemical heterogeneity RMS density

  13. Likelihood of correlation between seismic and thermo-chemical parameters in the lowermost mantle

  14. Ricard et al. JGR 1993 • Lithgow-Bertelloni and Richards Reviews of Geophys. 1998 • Superplumes

  15. How good is tomography

More Related