2000
DOI: 10.1029/2000jb900249
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Models of isostatic and dynamic topography, geoid anomalies, and their uncertainties

Abstract: Abstract. Knowledge of the dynamic topography at Earth's surface caused by sublithospheric density contrasts would provide crucial constraints on models of mantle dynamics. We calculate global models of this dynamic topography by subtracting from the observed topography estimates of the topography caused by assumed isostatically compensated density variations in the crust, the oceanic lithosphere, and the continental tectosphere. We also calculate the isostatic geoid anomaly that would result from these compen… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
91
1
1

Year Published

2003
2003
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 89 publications
(96 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
3
91
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For oceanic areas our residual topography map is close to the previously published one [25] and to the map of Panasyuk and Hager [26] based upon the cooling plate model. However, the di¡erences on continents are substantial.…”
Section: Mantle Gravity and Residual Topographysupporting
confidence: 59%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For oceanic areas our residual topography map is close to the previously published one [25] and to the map of Panasyuk and Hager [26] based upon the cooling plate model. However, the di¡erences on continents are substantial.…”
Section: Mantle Gravity and Residual Topographysupporting
confidence: 59%
“…This is especially true for North America and Eurasia where, contrary to our previous calculations, the crustal model is now based on high-resolution (mostly) seismic data, rather than the global model. It is also important to note that at this stage we do not apply any correction for the subcrustal continental tectosphere, as was done by Panasyuk and Hager [26].…”
Section: Mantle Gravity and Residual Topographymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some important aspects of such an error analysis have been addressed by Panasyuk and Hager (2000) and Kaban and Schwintzer (2001). The overall error derives from uncertainties in: (1) the measured gravity and (2) the estimated thickness and density of (a) the sediment; (b) the crystalline basement; (c) the upper crust; (d) the lower crust; and (e) the mantle lid.…”
Section: Appraisal Of Model Uncertaintiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For Flament et al (2013), it is situated between latitudes 15 • S and 15 • N, for Panasyuk and Hager (2000), between latitudes 20 • S and 15 • N, for Steinberger (2007) between latitudes 20 • S and 10 • N, for Braun (2010) between latitudes 25 • S and 10 • N, and for Winterbourne et al (2014), between latitudes 25 • S and 25 • N, which is roughly the latitude range we find here. In the same way, the ridge depression in the Indian Ocean, along the Australia-Antarctica Discordance (AAD) appears in all residual topography studies (Kido and Seno, 1994;Panasyuk and Hager, 2000;Kaban et al, 2003;Braun, 2010;Flament et al, 2013;Winterbourne et al, 2014). Our study also points out a relatively shallow seafloor in the vicinity of the Azores and Iceland, in the North Atlantic ocean, respectively at latitudes 40 • N and 65 • N, which is coherent with the high residual topography found by Kido and Seno (1994) and Winterbourne et al (2014).…”
Section: Subsidence Parametersmentioning
confidence: 60%