Crustal geomagnetic field and secular variation by regional and global models for Austria

Abstract

Using 12-year-long series of data (2001-2012) from geomagnetic observatories and repeat stations in Austria and its neighboring countries, a regional spatial-temporal (ST) model is developed based on the polynomial expansion consisting of latitude, longitude, and time of the geomagnetic field components and total magnetic field F. Additionally, we have used three different global models (CHAOS-5, POMME-9, and EMM2015), which are built on spherical harmonics up to a maximum degree Lmax and give the core field and crustal field separately. The normal field provided by the ST model and its “model bias”, which comprise the residuals of the differences between measured and predicted values, are calculated and the respective maps are shown. The residuals are considered an estimate of the local crustal field. In the case of global models, we have applied for each of these three methods to calculate the “model bias”: residuals of the differences between observed values and predicted values of the model, residuals of the differences between observed values and core field values of the model, and the average bias for the period 2001-2012. The normal field of the region of Austria provided by each global model is also calculated. Generally, the regional and global models yield relatively similar crustal fields for the Austrian region, especially when the first method is used. The normal fields calculated by them are in good agreement with each other. Each of the global models directly provides the crustal field, and they are compared with the aeromagnetic data provided by aeromagnetic surveys over the Austrian region. The ST model is in better agreement with aeromagnetic data. We have also analyzed the secular variation over the region, which is calculated from the rate of change of normal field given by the ST and global models.

Investigation of Regional Geomagnetic Field Modelling in Indonesia

“…The IGRF has constant secular variation over the given five-year intervals, while the SCHA model follows the secular variation accurately on an annual basis and shows a smooth trend. This shows that the secular variation of very small portions of the Earth is not captured by the global model (Peqini et al, 2018). Similar results were obtained by De Santis et al (2003) when they modelled the annual means and predicted the secular variation of the Italian Geomagnetic Reference Field (ITGRF).…”

“…where is given time, and is the component of the geomagnetic field (Peqini et al, 2018). Similarly, the results of the annual rate of changes from the SCHA model are compared with the annual rate of changes in the observational data and the value from the IGRF model.…”