DOCSLIB.ORG

On the Geoid and Orthometric Height Vs. Quasigeoid and Normal Height

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On the Geoid and Orthometric Height Vs. Quasigeoid and Normal Height J. Geod. Sci. 2018; 8:115–120 Research Article Open Access Lars E. Sjöberg* On the geoid and orthometric height vs. quasigeoid and normal height https://doi.org/10.1515/jogs-2018-0011 Keywords: ambiguous quasigeoid, geoid, geoid- Received August 6, 2018; accepted November 6, 2018 quasigeoid difference, resolution, vertical datum, quasi- geoid Abstract: The geoid, but not the quasigeoid, is an equipo- tential surface in the Earth’s gravity field that can serve both as a geodetic datum and a reference surface in geo- physics. It is also a natural zero-level surface, as it agrees 1 Introduction with the undisturbed mean sea level. Orthometric heights are physical heights above the geoid, while normal heights The geoid is an important equipotential surface and ver- are geometric heights (of the telluroid) above the reference tical reference surface in geodesy and geophysics. The ellipsoid. Normal heights and the quasigeoid can be deter- quasigeoid, introduced by M.S. Moldensky (Molodensky mined without any information on the Earth’s topographic et al. 1962) is not an equipotential surface, and it has density distribution, which is not the case for orthometric no special meaning in geophysics. The geoid serves as heights and geoid. the ideal reference surface for height systems in all coun- We show from various derivations that the difference be- tries that adopt orthometric heigths, while the rest of the tween the geoid and the quasigeoid heights, being of the world uses the quasigeoid with normal height systems (or order of 5 m, can be expressed by the simple Bouguer grav- normal-orthometric heights with more or less unknown ity anomaly as the only term that includes the topographic zero-levels). The great advantage of the quasigeoid to the density distribution. This implies that recent formulas, in- geoid is that it can be determined without knowledge cluding the refined Bouguer anomaly and a difference be- of the topographic density distribution. Foroughi et al. tween topographic gravity potentials, do not necessarily (2017), in a comparison of geoid and quasigeoid heights improve the result. vs. GPS-levelling geoid/and quasigeoid heights used the Intuitively one may assume that the quasigeoid, closely re- test area/data in Auvergne, France (Duquenne 2007), to lated with the Earth’s surface, is rougher than the geoid. demonstrate that the uncertainty in topographic density For numerical studies the topography is usually divided is practically harmless in geoid estimation. However, as into blocks of mean elevations, excluding the problem shown by Sjöberg (2018) GPS/levelling geoid heights can- with a non-star shaped Earth. In this case the smoothness not be used to validate the density model used in a gravi- of both types of geoid models are affected by the slope of metric geoid model. the terrain, which shows that even at high resolutions with As the quasigeoid is closely related with the Earth’s ultra-small blocks the geoid model is likely as rough as the geometric surface, Vanicek et al. (2012) raised the ques- quasigeoid model. tion whether it can be practically determined according to In case of the real Earth there are areas where the quasi- Molodensky’s proposed method by successive approxima- geoid, but not the geoid, is ambiguous, and this prob- tions. Sjöberg (2013) agreed that this computational tech- lem increases with the numerical resolution of the re- nique will hardly be successful in a detailed modelling of quested solution. These ambiguities affect also normal the quasigeoid, but he instead suggested employing the and orthometric heights. However, this problem can be extended Stokes’ formula, which is closely related with the solved by using the mean quasigeoid model defined by original Stokes’ formula, the basis in most geoid determi- using average topographic heights at any requested reso- nations (e.g., Ellmann and Vanicek 2007). Nevertheless, lution. An exact solution of the ambiguity for the normal as the quasigeoid is related with the Earth’s irregular sur- height/quasigeoid can be provided by GNSS-levelling. *Corresponding Author: Lars E. Sjöberg: Royal Institute of Tech- nology (KTH) Stockholm, Sweden Open Access. © 2018 Lars E. Sjöberg, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License. 116 Ë Lars E. Sjöberg ZZ h i face, one may still believe that it is much more irregular R * + S(ψ) ∆g (rP , Q) − ∆g (Q) dσQ , 4π훾0 than the geoid. This problem will be analysed by compar- σ ing formulas for geoid and quasigeoid determination. Here (2a) the KTH-method, also named Least Squares Modification of Stokes formula with Additive corrections (LSMSA; e.g. where superscript * denotes harmonic analytical continu- ∆g* Sjöberg 2003a, b; Sjöberg and Bagherbandi 2017, Chap. 6) ation (along the vertical) to geoid level in g and to com- r ∆g* r Q will be used, as it in contrast to other methods (e.g., the putation point level of radius P in ( P , ). After a few UNB technique; Ellmann and Vanicek 2007) explicitly pro- manipulations, including a Taylor expansion to first order vides the corrections needed for topographic height and in the last term, this formula can be approximated to 2 (︂ )︂ density. To simplify the discussion, the density is assumed HP ∆gP HP HP ∂∆g dNdwc ≈ + 3ζP − to be constant, and the geoid and quasigeoid are deter- 훾0 R 2훾0 ∂H P mined only from surface gravity data by Stokes-types for- R (︂ ∂∆g )︂ + (HP − HQ) dσQ . (2b) mulas. The minor effects of the Earth’s atmosphere and el- 4π훾0 ∂H Q lipsoidal shape (being almost the same for both types of H geoid modellings) are disregarded. The LSMSA technique where is the orthometric height. is based on analytical continuation of the surface gravity The combined topographic effect is the same as the anomaly to sea-level and surface level in geoid and quasi- negative of the topographic bias (Sjöberg 2007 and 2009a, geoid determinations, respectively (see the references in b; Sjöberg and Bagherbandi 2017, Sects. 5.2.3-5.2.4): (︂ 3 )︂ * Sect. 2). T 2πGρ 2 2HP bias(Tg) dNcomb = − HP + = − (3) 훾0 3R 훾0 for the constant topographic density ρ and gravitational 2 Determination of the geoid constant G. (For an arbitrary topographic density distribu- tion, see Sjöberg 2007 and 2009b.) Using the KTH-method the geoid height is given by (cf. Sjöberg and Bagherbandi 2017, Sect. 6.2.2) N = (N) + dN, (1a) 3 Determination of the quasigeoid where height T* + T* R (N) = 0 1 + ∆gdσ (1b) 3.1 Gravimetric approach 훾0 4π훾0 and The quasigeoid height (or height anomaly) at surface point P is given by (Ågren 2004, Sect. 9.5.1; Sjöberg and dN dN dNT = dwc + comb (1c) Bagherbandi 2017, Sect. 6.3.2) are the additive corrections for the downward continua- TP (T0 + T1)P rP * ζP = = + ∆g (rP , Q)dσQ tion (dwc) of the surface gravity anomaly (∆g) and the 훾 훾 4π훾 R * HP R * combined direct and indirect topographic effects. More- = ∆g (rP , Q)dσQ + ζP ≈ ∆g (rP , Q)dσQ 4π훾 rP 4π훾 over, R is the Mean Earth Radius, 훾0 is normal gravity at the 0 H reference ellipsoid, S (ψ) is Stokes’ kernel function with ar- P ζ + 3 r P , (4) gument ψ being the geocentric distance between computa- P * 훾 훾 tion and integration points and σ is the unit sphere. T0 and where is normal gravity at the telluroid, related to 0 * T1 are the analytically continued zeroth- and first-degree by disturbing potential harmonics. 훾 ≈ 훾 (1 − 2H/R). (5) The dwc effect becomes (Sjöberg 2003a, b and Sjöberg 0 and Bagherbandi 2017, Sect.5.3.1) The last step in Eq. (4) can also be decomposed into ZZ h i R * ζ ζ dζ dNdwc = S(ψ) ∆gg (Q) − ∆g (Q) dσQ P ≈ ( P) + P , (6a) 4π훾0 σ ZZ where R h * * i = S(ψ) ∆gg (Q) − ∆g (rP , Q) dσQ (T0 + T1)P R 4π훾0 (ζP) = + ∆gdσQ , (6b) σ 훾 4π훾 On the geoid and orthometric height vs. quasigeoid and normal height Ë 117 and Equation (9a) agrees with Sjöberg (1995), where the re- sult was derived in two different ways, namely by exter- R (︁ * )︁ HP dζP = ∆g (rP , Q) − ∆g(Q) dσQ + 3 ζP , (6c) 4π훾0 R nal and internal harmonic expansions of the topographic potential and by using Stokes’ original and extended for- * or, after using a Taylor expansion of ∆g to first order: mulas with Helmert gravity anomalies for the geoid and (︂ )︂ quasigeoid heights, respectively. R ∂∆g ζP dζP ≈ (HP − HQ) dσQ + 3 HP . (6d) The first term in Eq. (9a) is the traditional representa- 4π훾0 ∂H Q R tion for the GQC (Heiskanen and Moritz 1967, pp. 327-328), and the complete formula also agrees with the major terms 3.2 GNSS-levelling approach of the refined formula of Sjöberg and Bagherbandi (2017, Eq. 7.31b), derived by employing analytical continuation of The normal height can be defined by the formula (Heiska- the external disturbing potential. nen and Moritz 1967, Sect. 4-5 ) N C H = (7) 4.1 Other solutions to the GQC 훾¯ where C is the geopotential number (determined by pre- Flury and Rummel (2009) suggested replacing the simple (︁ BO)︁ cise levelling), and 훾¯ is the mean value of normal gravity Bouguer anomaly by the refined one ∆g as the basic (훾) between the reference ellipsoid and the telluroid. As 훾 contribution to the GQC, and they also refined the solution N (︁ T T)︁ decreases smoothly with height, H can easily be iterated by the difference Vg − VP /훾¯, 훾¯ being the mean value from an approximate value (e.g., Sjöberg and Bagherbandi of normal gravity at the reference ellipsoid and telluroid, 2017, Sect.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Navigation and the Global Positioning System (GPS): the Global Positioning System
    Navigation and the Global Positioning System (GPS): The Global Positioning System: Few changes of great importance to economics and safety have had more immediate impact and less fanfare than GPS. • GPS has quietly changed everything about how we locate objects and people on the Earth. • GPS is (almost) the final step toward solving one of the great conundrums of human history. Where the heck are we, anyway? In the Beginning……. • To understand what GPS has meant to navigation it is necessary to go back to the beginning. • A quick look at a ‘precision’ map of the world in the 18th century tells one a lot about how accurate our navigation was. Tools of the Trade: • Navigations early tools could only crudely estimate location. • A Sextant (or equivalent) can measure the elevation of something above the horizon. This gives your Latitude. • The Compass could provide you with a measurement of your direction, which combined with distance could tell you Longitude. • For distance…well counting steps (or wheel rotations) was the thing. An Early Triumph: • Using just his feet and a shadow, Eratosthenes determined the diameter of the Earth. • In doing so, he used the last and most elusive of our navigational tools. Time Plenty of Weaknesses: The early tools had many levels of uncertainty that were cumulative in producing poor maps of the world. • Step or wheel rotation counting has an obvious built-in uncertainty. • The Sextant gives latitude, but also requires knowledge of the Earth’s radius to determine the distance between locations. • The compass relies on the assumption that the North Magnetic pole is coincident with North Rotational pole (it’s not!) and that it is a perfect dipole (nope…).
    [Show full text]
  • Meyers Height 1
    University of Connecticut DigitalCommons@UConn Peer-reviewed Articles 12-1-2004 What Does Height Really Mean? Part I: Introduction Thomas H. Meyer University of Connecticut, [email protected] Daniel R. Roman National Geodetic Survey David B. Zilkoski National Geodetic Survey Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/thmeyer_articles Recommended Citation Meyer, Thomas H.; Roman, Daniel R.; and Zilkoski, David B., "What Does Height Really Mean? Part I: Introduction" (2004). Peer- reviewed Articles. Paper 2. http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/thmeyer_articles/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UConn. It has been accepted for inclusion in Peer-reviewed Articles by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UConn. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Land Information Science What does height really mean? Part I: Introduction Thomas H. Meyer, Daniel R. Roman, David B. Zilkoski ABSTRACT: This is the first paper in a four-part series considering the fundamental question, “what does the word height really mean?” National Geodetic Survey (NGS) is embarking on a height mod- ernization program in which, in the future, it will not be necessary for NGS to create new or maintain old orthometric height benchmarks. In their stead, NGS will publish measured ellipsoid heights and computed Helmert orthometric heights for survey markers. Consequently, practicing surveyors will soon be confronted with coping with these changes and the differences between these types of height. Indeed, although “height’” is a commonly used word, an exact definition of it can be difficult to find. These articles will explore the various meanings of height as used in surveying and geodesy and pres- ent a precise definition that is based on the physics of gravitational potential, along with current best practices for using survey-grade GPS equipment for height measurement.
    [Show full text]
  • National Spatial Reference System: "Positioning Changes for 2022"
    National Spatial Reference System “Positioning Changes for 2022” Civil GPS Service Interface Committee Meeting Miami, Florida September 24, 2018 Denis Riordan, PSM NOAA, National Geodetic Survey [email protected] U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration National Geodetic Survey Mission: To define, maintain & provide access to the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) to meet our Nation’s economic, social & environmental needs National Spatial Reference System * Latitude * Scale * Longitude * Gravity * Height * Orientation & their variations in time U. S. Geometric Datums in 2022 National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) Improvements in the Horizontal Datums TIME NETWORK METHOD NETWORK SPAN ACCURACY OF REFERENCE NAD 27 1927-1986 10 meter (1 part in 100,000) TRAVERSE & TRIANGULATION - GROUND MARKS USED FOR NAD83(86) 1986-1990 1 meter REFERENCING (1 part THE in 100,000) NSRS. NAD83(199x)* 1990-2007 0.1 meter GPS B- orderBECOMES (1 part THE in MEANS 1 million) OF POSITIONING – STILL GRND MARKS. HARN A-order (1 part in 10 million) NAD83(2007) 2007 - 2011 0.01 meter 0.01 meter GPS – CORS STATIONS ARE MEANS (CORS) OF REFERENCE FOR THE NSRS. NAD83(2011) 2011 - 2022 0.01 meter 0.01 meter (CORS) NSRS Reference Basis Old Method - Ground Current Method - GNSS Stations Marks (Terrestrial) (CORS) Why Replace NAD83? • Datum based on best known information about the earth’s size and shape from the early 1980’s (45 years old), and the terrestrial survey data of the time. • NAD83 is NON-geocentric & hence inconsistent w/GNSS . • Necessary for agreement with future ubiquitous positioning of GNSS capability. Future Geometric (3-D) Reference Frame Blueprint for 2022: Part 1 – Geometric Datum • Replace NAD83 with new geometric reference frame – by 2022.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Mount Everest Higher Now Than 100 Years
    Is Mount Everest higher now than 155 years ago?' Giorgio Poretti All human works are subject to error, and it is only in the power of man to guard against its intrusion by care and attention. (George Everest) Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica CER Telegeomatica - Università di Trieste Foreword One day in the Spring of 1852 at Dehra Dun, India, in the foot hills of the Himalayas, the door of the office of the Director General of the Survey of India opens. Enters Radanath Sikdar, the chief of the team of human computers who were processing the data of the triangulation measurements of the Himalayan peaks taken during the Winter. "Sir I have discovered the highest mountain of the world…….it is Peak n. XV". These words, reported by Col. Younghausband have become a legend in the measurement of Mt. Everest. Introduction The height of a mountain is determined by three main factors. The first is the sea level that would be under the mountain if the water could flow freely under the continents. The second depends on the accuracy of the elevations of the points in the valley from which the measurements are performed, and on the mareograph taken as a reference (height datum). The third factor depends on the amount of snow on the summit. This changes from season to season and from year to year with a variation that exceeds a metre between spring and autumn. Optical measurements from a long distance are also heavily influenced by the refraction of the atmosphere (due to the difference of pressure and temperature between the points of observation in the valley and the summit), and by the plumb-line deflections.
    [Show full text]
  • Download/Pdf/Ps-Is-Qzss/Ps-Qzss-001.Pdf (Accessed on 15 June 2021)
    remote sensing Article Design and Performance Analysis of BDS-3 Integrity Concept Cheng Liu 1, Yueling Cao 2, Gong Zhang 3, Weiguang Gao 1,*, Ying Chen 1, Jun Lu 1, Chonghua Liu 4, Haitao Zhao 4 and Fang Li 5 1 Beijing Institute of Tracking and Telecommunication Technology, Beijing 100094, China; [email protected] (C.L.); [email protected] (Y.C.); [email protected] (J.L.) 2 Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 200030, China; [email protected] 3 Institute of Telecommunication and Navigation, CAST, Beijing 100094, China; [email protected] 4 Beijing Institute of Spacecraft System Engineering, Beijing 100094, China; [email protected] (C.L.); [email protected] (H.Z.) 5 National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100094, China; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Compared to the BeiDou regional navigation satellite system (BDS-2), the BeiDou global navigation satellite system (BDS-3) carried out a brand new integrity concept design and construction work, which defines and achieves the integrity functions for major civil open services (OS) signals such as B1C, B2a, and B1I. The integrity definition and calculation method of BDS-3 are introduced. The fault tree model for satellite signal-in-space (SIS) is used, to decompose and obtain the integrity risk bottom events. In response to the weakness in the space and ground segments of the system, a variety of integrity monitoring measures have been taken. On this basis, the design values for the new B1C/B2a signal and the original B1I signal are proposed, which are 0.9 × 10−5 and 0.8 × 10−5, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Geodynamics and Rate of Volcanism on Massive Earth-Like Planets
    The Astrophysical Journal, 700:1732–1749, 2009 August 1 doi:10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1732 C 2009. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A. GEODYNAMICS AND RATE OF VOLCANISM ON MASSIVE EARTH-LIKE PLANETS E. S. Kite1,3, M. Manga1,3, and E. Gaidos2 1 Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA; [email protected] 2 Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA Received 2008 September 12; accepted 2009 May 29; published 2009 July 16 ABSTRACT We provide estimates of volcanism versus time for planets with Earth-like composition and masses 0.25–25 M⊕, as a step toward predicting atmospheric mass on extrasolar rocky planets. Volcanism requires melting of the silicate mantle. We use a thermal evolution model, calibrated against Earth, in combination with standard melting models, to explore the dependence of convection-driven decompression mantle melting on planet mass. We show that (1) volcanism is likely to proceed on massive planets with plate tectonics over the main-sequence lifetime of the parent star; (2) crustal thickness (and melting rate normalized to planet mass) is weakly dependent on planet mass; (3) stagnant lid planets live fast (they have higher rates of melting than their plate tectonic counterparts early in their thermal evolution), but die young (melting shuts down after a few Gyr); (4) plate tectonics may not operate on high-mass planets because of the production of buoyant crust which is difficult to subduct; and (5) melting is necessary but insufficient for efficient volcanic degassing—volatiles partition into the earliest, deepest melts, which may be denser than the residue and sink to the base of the mantle on young, massive planets.
    [Show full text]
  • Modernization of the National Spatial Reference System
    Pathway to 2022: The Ongoing Modernization of the United States National Spatial Reference System William A. Stone & Dana J. Caccamise II NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey Mission & Vision To define, maintain, and provide access to the National Spatial Reference System to Introduction meet our nation's economic, social, and environmental needs Presented here is an update, including recent naming convention and technical decisions, for … is the mission of the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s the ongoing National Geodetic Survey effort to modernize the National Spatial Reference (NOAA) National Geodetic Survey (NGS). The National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) is System, which will culminate in the 2022 (anticipated) replacement of all components of the the nation’s system of latitude, longitude, height/elevation, and related geophysical and current U.S. national geodetic datums and models, including the North American Datum of geodetic models, tools, and data, which together provide a consistent spatial framework for the 1983 (NAD83) and the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). This modernized broad spectrum of civilian geospatial data positioning requirements. NSRS facilitates and three-dimensional and time-dependent national spatial framework will optimally leverage the empowers the NGS organizational vision that … ever-increasing capabilities of modern technologies, data, and modeling – notably the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), gravity data, and geopotential/tectonic modeling – while Everyone accurately knows where they are and where other things are better accommodating Earth’s dynamic nature. The future NSRS will feature unprecedented anytime, anyplace. accuracy and repeatability, and users will experience many efficiencies of access well beyond To continue to accomplish the mission and further the vision of today’s NGS, today’s capability.
    [Show full text]
  • What Does Height Really Mean?
    Department of Natural Resources and the Environment Department of Natural Resources and the Environment Monographs University of Connecticut Year 2007 What Does Height Really Mean? Thomas H. Meyer∗ Daniel R. Romany David B. Zilkoskiz ∗University of Connecticut, [email protected] yNational Geodetic Survey zNational Geodetic Suvey This paper is posted at DigitalCommons@UConn. http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/nrme monos/1 What does height really mean? Thomas Henry Meyer Department of Natural Resources Management and Engineering University of Connecticut Storrs, CT 06269-4087 Tel: (860) 486-2840 Fax: (860) 486-5480 E-mail: [email protected] Daniel R. Roman David B. Zilkoski National Geodetic Survey National Geodetic Survey 1315 East-West Highway 1315 East-West Highway Silver Springs, MD 20910 Silver Springs, MD 20910 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] June, 2007 ii The authors would like to acknowledge the careful and constructive reviews of this series by Dr. Dru Smith, Chief Geodesist of the National Geodetic Survey. Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1Preamble.......................................... 1 1.2Preliminaries........................................ 2 1.2.1 TheSeries...................................... 3 1.3 Reference Ellipsoids . ................................... 3 1.3.1 Local Reference Ellipsoids . ........................... 3 1.3.2 Equipotential Ellipsoids . ........................... 5 1.3.3 Equipotential Ellipsoids as Vertical Datums ................... 6 1.4MeanSeaLevel....................................... 8 1.5U.S.NationalVerticalDatums.............................. 10 1.5.1 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) . ........... 10 1.5.2 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) . ........... 11 1.5.3 International Great Lakes Datum of 1985 (IGLD 85) . ........... 11 1.5.4 TidalDatums.................................... 12 1.6Summary.......................................... 14 2 Physics and Gravity 15 2.1Preamble.........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Geodynamics: Fourier Transform Methods
    Advanced Geodynamics: Fourier Transform Methods David T. Sandwell January 13, 2021 To Susan, Katie, Melissa, Nick, and Cassie Eddie Would Go Preprint for publication by Cambridge University Press, October 16, 2020 Contents 1 Observations Related to Plate Tectonics 7 1.1 Global Maps . .7 1.2 Exercises . .9 2 Fourier Transform Methods in Geophysics 20 2.1 Introduction . 20 2.2 Definitions of Fourier Transforms . 21 2.3 Fourier Sine and Cosine Transforms . 22 2.4 Examples of Fourier Transforms . 23 2.5 Properties of Fourier transforms . 26 2.6 Solving a Linear PDE Using Fourier Methods and the Cauchy Residue Theorem . 29 2.7 Fourier Series . 32 2.8 Exercises . 33 3 Plate Kinematics 36 3.1 Plate Motions on a Flat Earth . 36 3.2 Triple Junction . 37 3.3 Plate Motions on a Sphere . 41 3.4 Velocity Azimuth . 44 3.5 Recipe for Computing Velocity Magnitude . 45 3.6 Triple Junctions on a Sphere . 45 3.7 Hot Spots and Absolute Plate Motions . 46 3.8 Exercises . 46 4 Marine Magnetic Anomalies 48 4.1 Introduction . 48 4.2 Crustal Magnetization at a Spreading Ridge . 48 4.3 Uniformly Magnetized Block . 52 4.4 Anomalies in the Earth’s Magnetic Field . 52 4.5 Magnetic Anomalies Due to Seafloor Spreading . 53 4.6 Discussion . 58 4.7 Exercises . 59 ii CONTENTS iii 5 Cooling of the Oceanic Lithosphere 61 5.1 Introduction . 61 5.2 Temperature versus Depth and Age . 65 5.3 Heat Flow versus Age . 66 5.4 Thermal Subsidence . 68 5.5 The Plate Cooling Model .
    [Show full text]
  • Coordinate Systems in Geodesy
    COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN GEODESY E. J. KRAKIWSKY D. E. WELLS May 1971 TECHNICALLECTURE NOTES REPORT NO.NO. 21716 COORDINATE SYSTElVIS IN GEODESY E.J. Krakiwsky D.E. \Vells Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering University of New Brunswick P.O. Box 4400 Fredericton, N .B. Canada E3B 5A3 May 1971 Latest Reprinting January 1998 PREFACE In order to make our extensive series of lecture notes more readily available, we have scanned the old master copies and produced electronic versions in Portable Document Format. The quality of the images varies depending on the quality of the originals. The images have not been converted to searchable text. TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS iv LIST OF TABLES . vi l. INTRODUCTION l 1.1 Poles~ Planes and -~es 4 1.2 Universal and Sidereal Time 6 1.3 Coordinate Systems in Geodesy . 7 2. TERRESTRIAL COORDINATE SYSTEMS 9 2.1 Terrestrial Geocentric Systems • . 9 2.1.1 Polar Motion and Irregular Rotation of the Earth • . • • . • • • • . 10 2.1.2 Average and Instantaneous Terrestrial Systems • 12 2.1. 3 Geodetic Systems • • • • • • • • • • . 1 17 2.2 Relationship between Cartesian and Curvilinear Coordinates • • • • • • • . • • 19 2.2.1 Cartesian and Curvilinear Coordinates of a Point on the Reference Ellipsoid • • • • • 19 2.2.2 The Position Vector in Terms of the Geodetic Latitude • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 22 2.2.3 Th~ Position Vector in Terms of the Geocentric and Reduced Latitudes . • • • • • • • • • • • 27 2.2.4 Relationships between Geodetic, Geocentric and Reduced Latitudes • . • • • • • • • • • • 28 2.2.5 The Position Vector of a Point Above the Reference Ellipsoid . • • . • • • • • • . .• 28 2.2.6 Transformation from Average Terrestrial Cartesian to Geodetic Coordinates • 31 2.3 Geodetic Datums 33 2.3.1 Datum Position Parameters .
    [Show full text]
  • Sunsets, Tall Buildings, and the Earth's Radius
    Sunsets, tall buildings, and the Earth’s radius P.K.Aravind Physics Department Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, MA 01609 ([email protected] ) ABSTRACT It is shown how repeated observations of the sunset from various points up a tall building can be used to determine the Earth’s radius. The same observations can also be used, at some latitudes, to deduce an approximate value for the amount of atmospheric refraction at the horizon. Eratosthenes appears to have been the first to have determined the Earth’s radius by measuring the altitude of the sun at noon in Alexandria on a day when he knew it to be directly overhead in Syene (Aswan) to the south [1]. Despite the vastly better methods of determining the Earth’s size and shape today, Eratosthenes’ achievement continues to inspire schoolteachers and their students around the world. I can still recall my high school principal, Mr. Jack Gibson, telling us the story of Eratosthenes on numerous occasions in his inimitable style, which required frequent audience participation from the schoolboys gathered around him. In 2005, as part of the celebrations accompanying the World Year of Physics, the American Physical Society organized a project [2] in which students from 700 high schools all over North America collaborated in a recreation of Eratosthenes’ historic experiment. The schools were teamed up in pairs, and each pair carried out measurements similar to those of Eratosthenes and pooled their results to obtain a value for the Earth’s radius. The average of all the results so obtained yielded a value for the Earth’s radius that differed from the true value by just 6%.
    [Show full text]
  • How Big Is the Earth?
    Document ID: 04_01_13_1 Date Received: 2013-04-01 Date Revised: 2013-07-24 Date Accepted: 2013-08-16 Curriculum Topic Benchmarks: M4.4.8, M5.4.12, M8.4.2, M8.4.15, S15.4.4, S.16.4.1, S16.4.3 Grade Level: High School [9-12] Subject Keywords: circumference, radius, Eratosthenes, gnomon, sun dial, Earth, noon, time zone, latitude, longitude, collaboration Rating: Advanced How Big Is the Earth? By: Stephen J Edberg, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 183-301, Pasadena CA 91011 e-mail: [email protected] From: The PUMAS Collection http://pumas.jpl.nasa.gov ©2013, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Eratosthenes, the third librarian of the Great Library of Alexandria, measured the circumference of Earth around 240 B.C.E. Having learned that the Sun passed through the zenith1 on the summer solstice2 as seen in modern day Aswan, he measured the length of a shadow on the solstice in Alexandria. By converting the measurement to an angle he determined the difference in latitude – what fraction of a circle spanned the separation – between Aswan and Alexandria. Knowing the physical distance between Aswan and Alexandria allowed him to determine the circumference of Earth. Cooperating schools can duplicate Eratosthenes’ measurements without the use of present day technology, if desired. Sharing their data permits students to calculate the circumference and the radius of Earth. The measurements do not require a site on the Tropic of Cancer (or the Tropic of Capricorn) but they must be made at local solar noon on the same date.
    [Show full text]