Physics – Fluid Dynamics
Scientific paper
Nov 1991
adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=1991gapfd..60...37l&link_type=abstract
Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, vol. 60, Issue 1, pp.37-88
Physics
Fluid Dynamics
4
Geomagnetism, Spherical Harmonic Analysis, Error Analysis, Mathematical Models
Scientific paper
Recent work pertaining to estimating error and accuracies in geomagnetic field modeling is reviewed from a unified viewpoint and illustrated with examples. The formulation of a finite dimensional approximation to the underlying infinite dimensional problem is developed. Central to the formulation is an inner product and norm in the solution space through which a priori information can be brought to bear on the problem. Such information is crucial to estimation of the effects of higher degree fields at the Core-Mantle boundary (CMB) because the behavior of higher degree fields is masked in our measurements by the presence of the field from the Earth's crust. Contributions to the errors in predicting geophysical quantities based on the approximate model are separated into three categories: (1) the usual error from the measurement noise; (2) the error from unmodeled fields, i.e. from sources in the crust, ionosphere, etc.; and (3) the error from truncating to a finite dimensioned solution and prediction space. The combination of the first two is termed low degree error while the third is referred to as truncation error. The error analysis problem consists of "characterizing" the difference z = z - z, where z is some quantity depending on the magnetic field and z is the estimate of z resulting from our model. Two approaches are discussed. The method of Confidence Set Inference (CSI) seeks to find an upper bound for |z - |. Statistical methods, i.e. Bayesian or Stochastic Estimation, seek to estimate E(z2), where E is the expectation value. Estimation of both the truncation error and low degree error is discussed for both approaches. Expressions are found for an upper bound for |z| and for E(δz2). Of particular interest is the computation of the radial field, B., at the CMB for which error estimates are made as examples of the methods. Estimated accuracies of the Gauss coefficients are given for the various methods. In general, the lowest error estimates result when the greatest amount of a priori information is available and, indeed, the estimates for truncation error are completely dependent upon the nature of the a priori information assumed. For the most conservative approach, the error in computing point values of Br at the CMB is unbounded and one must be content with, e.g., averages over some large area. The various assumptions about a priori information are reviewed. Work is needed to extend and develop this information. In particular, information regarding the truncated fields is needed to determine if the pessimistic bounds presently available are realistic or if there is a real physical basis for lower error estimates. Characterization of crustal fields for degree greater than 50 is needed as is more rigorous characterization of the external fields.
No associations
LandOfFree
Recent progress in estimating uncertainty in geomagnetic field modeling does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.
If you have personal experience with Recent progress in estimating uncertainty in geomagnetic field modeling, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Recent progress in estimating uncertainty in geomagnetic field modeling will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-1717268