Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:50:29.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

20 - Geodynamic Data Assimilation: Techniques and Observables to Construct and Constrain Time-Dependent Earth Models

from Part III - ‘Solid’ Earth Applications: From the Surface to the Core

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2023

By
Hans-Peter Bunge ,
Andre Horbach ,
Lorenzo Colli ,
Siavash Ghelichkhan ,
Berta Vilacís  and
Jorge N. Hayek
Edited by
Alik Ismail-Zadeh ,
Fabio Castelli ,
Dylan Jones  and
Sabrina Sanchez
Alik Ismail-Zadeh
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
Fabio Castelli
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi, Florence
Dylan Jones
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Sabrina Sanchez
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Germany
Get access

Summary

Abstract: Variational data assimilation through the adjoint method is a powerful emerging technique in geodynamics. It allows one to retrodict past states of the Earth’s mantle as optimal flow histories relative to the current state, so that poorly known mantle flow parameters such as rheology and composition can be tested explicitly against observations gleaned from the geologic record. By yielding testable time dependent Earth models, the technique links observations from seismology, geology, mineral physics, and paleomagnetism in a dynamically consistent way, greatly enhancing our understanding of the solid Earth system. It motivates three research fronts. The first is computational, because the iterative nature of the technique combined with the need of Earth models for high spatial and temporal resolution classifies the task as a grand challenge problem at the level of exa-scale computing. The second is seismological, because the seismic mantle state estimate provides key input information for retrodictions, but entails substantial uncertainties. This calls for efforts to construct 3D reference and collaborative seismic models, and to account for seismic data uncertainties. The third is geological, because retrodictions necessarily use simplified Earth models and noisy input data. Synthetic tests show that retrodictions always reduce the final state misfit, regardless of model and data error. So the quality of any retrodiction must be assessed by geological constraints on past mantle flow. Horizontal surface velocities are an input rather than an output of the retrodiction problem; but viable retrodiction tests can be linked to estimates of vertical lithosphere motion induced by mantle convective stresses.

Keywords

mantle convectionflow retrodictiongeodynamic Earth modelsdynamic topographygeoidtruncated anelastic-liquid approximationadjoint equationcost functiondata assimilationhigh-performance computing
Type
Chapter
Information
Applications of Data Assimilation and Inverse Problems in the Earth Sciences , pp. 311 - 325
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bauer, S., Huber, M., Ghelichkhan, S. et al. (2019). Large-scale simulation of mantle convection based on a new matrix-free approach. Journal of Computational Science, 31, 60–76.Google Scholar
Baumgardner, J. R. (1985). Three-dimensional treatment of convective flow in the Earth’s mantle. Journal of Statistical Physics, 39(5/6).Google Scholar
Becker, T. W., and Boschi, L. (2002). A comparison of tomographic and geodynamic mantle models. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 3(1).Google Scholar
Bello, L., Coltice, N., Rolf, T., and Tackley, P. J. (2014). On the predictability limit of convection models of the Earth’s mantle. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 15, 2319–28.Google Scholar
Braun, J. (2010). The many surface expressions of mantle dynamics. Nature Geoscience, 3(12), 825–33.Google Scholar
Bunge, H.-P. (2005). Low plume excess temperature and high core heat flux inferred from non-adiabatic geotherms in internally heated mantle circulation models. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 153(1–3), 3–10.Google Scholar
Bunge, H.-P., and Davies, J. H. (2001). Tomographic images of a mantle circulation model. Geophysical Research Letters, 28(1), 77–80.Google Scholar
Bunge, H.-P., and Glasmacher, U. (2018). Models and observations of vertical motion (MoveOn) associated with rifting to passive margins: Preface. Gondwana Research, 53, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunge, H. P., Hagelberg, C. R., and Travis, B. J. (2003). Mantle circulation models with variational data assimilation: Inferring past mantle flow and structure from plate motion histories and seismic tomography. Geophysical Journal International, 152(2), 280–301.Google Scholar
Bunge, H.-P., and Richards, M. A. (1992). The backward-problem of plate tectonics and mantle convection (abstract). Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 73(14), 281.Google Scholar
Bunge, H.-P., Richards, M. A., and Baumgardner, J. R. (2002). Mantle-circulation models with sequential data assimilation: Inferring present-day mantle structure from plate-motion histories. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 360(1800), 2545–67.Google Scholar
Bunge, H.-P., Richards, M. A., Lithgow-Bertelloni, C. et al. (1998). Time scales and heterogeneous structure in geodynamic Earth models. Science, 280(5360), 91–5.Google Scholar
Burgess, P. M., Gurnis, M., and Moresi, L. (1997). Formation of sequences in the cratonic interior of North America by interaction between mantle, eustatic, and stratigraphic processes. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 109(12), 1515–35.Google Scholar
Burstedde, C., Stadler, G., Alisic, L. et al. (2013). Large-scale adaptive mantle convection simulation. Geophysical Journal International, 192(3), 889–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carena, S., Bunge, H.-P., and Friedrich, A. M. (2019). Analysis of geological hiatus surfaces across Africa in the Cenozoic and implications for the timescales of convectively-maintained topography. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 56(12), 1333–46.Google Scholar
Carrassi, A., and Vannitsem, S. (2010). Accounting for model error in variational data assimilation: A deterministic formulation. Monthly Weather Review, 138(9), 3369–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chust, T. C., Steinle-Neumann, G., Dolejš, D., Schuberth, B. S. A., and Bunge, H. P. (2017). MMA-EoS: A computational framework for mineralogical thermodynamics. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 122(12), 9881–920.Google Scholar
Cohen, K. M., Finney, S., Gibbard, P. L., and Fan, J.-X. (2013). The ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart. Episodes, 36(3), 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colli, L., Bunge, H.-P., and Oeser, J. (2020). Impact of model inconsistencies on reconstructions of past mantle flow obtained using the adjoint method. Geophysical Journal International, 221(1), 617–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colli, L., Bunge, H.-P., and Schuberth, B. S. A. (2015). On retrodictions of global mantle flow with assimilated surface velocities. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(20), 8341–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colli, L., Fichtner, A., and Bunge, H.-P. (2013). Full waveform tomography of the upper mantle in the South Atlantic region: Imaging a westward fluxing shallow asthenosphere? Tectonophysics, 604, 26–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colli, L., Ghelichkhan, S., and Bunge, H.-P. (2016). On the ratio of dynamic topography and gravity anomalies in a dynamic Earth. Geophysical Research Letters, 43(6), 2510–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colli, L., Ghelichkhan, S., Bunge, H.-P., and Oeser, J. (2018). Retrodictions of Mid Paleogene mantle flow and dynamic topography in the Atlantic region from compressible high resolution adjoint mantle convection models: Sensitivity to deep mantle viscosity and tomographic input model. Gondwana Research, 53, 252–72.Google Scholar
Colton, D., and Kress, R. (1992). Inverse Acoustic and Electromagnetic Scattering Theory. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Czarnota, K., Hoggard, M., White, N., and Winterbourne, J. (2013). Spatial and temporal patterns of Cenozoic dynamic topography around Australia. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 14(3), 634–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, D. R., Goes, S., Davies, J. H. et al. (2012). Reconciling dynamic and seismic models of Earth’s lower mantle: The dominant role of thermal heterogeneity. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 353–4(0), 253–69.Google Scholar
DiCaprio, L., Gurnis, M., and Müller, R. D. (2009). Long-wavelength tilting of the Australian continent since the Late Cretaceous. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 278(3–4), 175–85.Google Scholar
Dziewonski, A. M., and Anderson, D. L. (1981). Preliminary reference Earth model. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 25(4), 297–356.Google Scholar
Fernandes, V. M., and Roberts, G. G. (2020). Cretaceous to recent net continental uplift from paleobiological data: Insights into sub-plate support. GSA Bulletin, 133(5–6), 1217–36.Google Scholar
Fichtner, A., Kennett, B. L. N., Igel, H., and Bunge, H.-P. (2009). Full seismic wave-form tomography for upper-mantle structure in the Australasian region using adjoint methods. Geophysical Journal International, 179(3), 1703–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fichtner, A., van Herwaarden, D.-P., Afanasiev, M. et al. (2018). The collaborative seismic Earth model: Generation 1. Geophysical Research Letters, 45(9), 4007–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowers, R., Wernicke, B., and Farley, K. (2008). Unroofing, incision, and uplift history of the southwestern Colorado Plateau from apatite (U-Th)/He thermochronometry. GSA Bulletin, 120(5–6), 571–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freissler, R., Zaroli, C., Lambotte, S., and Schuberth, B. S. (2020). Tomographic filtering via the generalized inverse: A way to account for seismic data uncertainty. Geophysical Journal International, 223(1), 254–69.Google Scholar
French, S. W., and Romanowicz, B. A. (2014). Whole-mantle radially anisotropic shear velocity structure from spectral-element waveform tomography. Geophysical Journal International, 199(3), 1303–27.Google Scholar
Friedrich, A. M. (2019). Palaeogeological hiatus surface mapping: A tool to visualize vertical motion of the continents. Geological Magazine, 156(2), 308–19.Google Scholar
Friedrich, A. M., Bunge, H.-P., Rieger, S. M. et al. (2018). Stratigraphic framework for the plume mode of mantle convection and the analysis of interregional unconformities on geological maps. Gondwana Research, 53, 159–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghelichkhan, S., and Bunge, H.-P. (2016). The compressible adjoint equations in geodynamics: Derivation and numerical assessment. GEM – International Journal on Geomathematics, 7(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
Ghelichkhan, S., and Bunge, H.-P. (2018). The adjoint equations for thermochemical compressible mantle convection: Derivation and verification by twin experiments. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 474(2220), 20180329.Google Scholar
Ghelichkhan, S., Bunge, H.-P., and Oeser, J. (2021), Global mantle flow retrodictions for the early Cenozoic using an adjoint method: Evolving dynamic topographies, deep mantle structures, flow trajectories and sublithospheric stresses. Geophysical Journal International, 226(2), 1432–60.Google Scholar
Guillocheau, F., Rouby, D., Robin, C. et al. (2012). Quantification and causes of the terrigeneous sediment budget at the scale of a continental margin: A new method applied to the Namibia-South Africa margin. Basin Research, 24(1), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillocheau, F., Simon, B., Baby, G. et al. (2018). Planation surfaces as a record of mantle dynamics: The case example of Africa. Gondwana Research, 53, 82–98.Google Scholar
Hager, B. H., Clayton, R. W., Richards, M. A., Comer, R. P., and Dziewonski, A. M. (1985). Lower mantle heterogeneity, dynamic topography and the geoid. Nature, 313(6003), 541–5.Google Scholar
Hartley, R. A., Roberts, G. G., White, N. J., and Richardson, C. (2011). Transient convective uplift of an ancient buried landscape. Nature Geoscience, 4(8), 562–5.Google Scholar
Hayek, J. N., Vilacís, B., Bunge, H.-P. et al. (2020). Continent-scale hiatus maps for the Atlantic Realm and Australia since the Upper Jurassic and links to mantle flow induced dynamic topography. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 476(2242), 20200390.Google Scholar
Hayek, J. N., Vilac´ıs, B., Bunge, H.-P. et al. (2021). Correction: Continent-scale hiatus maps for the Atlantic Realm and Australia since the Upper Jurassic and links to mantle flow-induced dynamic topography. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 477(2251), 20210437.Google Scholar
Heister, T., Dannberg, J., Gassmöller, R., and Bangerth, W. (2017). High accuracy mantle convection simulation through modern numerical methods. II: Realistic models and problems. Geophysical Journal International, 210(2), 833–51.Google Scholar
Hoggard, M. J., Austerman, J., Randel, C., and Stephenson, S. (2021). Observational estimates of dynamic topography through space and time. In Marquardt, H., Ballmer, S., adn Cottaar, M., and Konter, J., eds., Mantle Convection and Surface Expressions. Washington DC: American Geophysical Union (AGU), pp. 371–411.Google Scholar
Hoggard, M. J., Winterbourne, J., Czarnota, K., and White, N. (2017). Oceanic residual depth measurements, the plate cooling model, and global dynamic topography. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 122(3), 2328–72.Google Scholar
Horbach, A., Bunge, H. P., and Oeser, J. (2014). The adjoint method in geodynamics: Derivation from a general operator formulation and application to the initial condition problem in a high resolution mantle circulation model. GEM – International Journal on Geomathematics, 5(2), 163–94.Google Scholar
Iaffaldano, G., and Bunge, H.-P. (2015). Rapid plate motion variations through geological time: Observations serving geodynamic interpretation. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 43, 571–92.Google Scholar
Ismail-Zadeh, A., Schubert, G., Tsepelev, I., and Korotkii, A. (2004). Inverse problem of thermal convection: numerical approach and application to mantle plume restoration. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 145(1–4), 99–114.Google Scholar
Japsen, P. (2018). Sonic velocity of chalk, sandstone and marine shale controlled by effective stress: Velocity-depth anomalies as a proxy for vertical movements. Gondwana Research, 53, 145–58.Google Scholar
Jarvis, G. T., and Mckenzie, D. P. (1980). Convection in a compressible fluid with infinite Prandtl number. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 96(03), 515–83.Google Scholar
Kronbichler, M., Heister, T., and Bangerth, W. (2012). High accuracy mantle convection simulation through modern numerical methods. Geophysical Journal International, 191, 12–29.Google Scholar
Li, D., Gurnis, M., and Stadler, G. (2017). Towards adjoint-based inversion of time-dependent mantle convection with nonlinear viscosity. Geophysical Journal International, 209(1), 86–105.Google Scholar
McNamara, A. K. (2019). A review of large low shear velocity provinces and ultra low velocity zones. Tectonophysics, 760, 199–220.Google Scholar
McNamara, A. K., and Zhong, S. (2005). Thermochemical structures beneath Africa and the Pacific Ocean. Nature, 437(7062), 1136–9.Google Scholar
Mégnin, C., Bunge, H.-P., Romanowicz, B., and Richards, M. A. (1997). Imaging 3-D spherical convection models: What can seismic tomography tell us about mantle dynamics? Geophysical Research Letters, 24(11), 1299–302.Google Scholar
Meinhold, G. (2010). Rutile and its applications in Earth sciences. Earth–Science Reviews, 102(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Miall, A. D. (2016). The valuation of unconformities. Earth-Science Reviews, 163, 22–71.Google Scholar
Mitrovica, J. X. (1996). Haskell [1935] revisited. Journal of Geophysical Research, 101(B1), 555.Google Scholar
Mitrovica, J. X., Beaumont, C., and Jarvis, G. T. (1989). Tilting of continental interiors by the dynamical effects of subduction. Tectonics, 8(5), 1079–94.Google Scholar
Mosca, I., Cobden, L., Deuss, A., Ritsema, J., and Trampert, J. (2012). Seismic and mineralogical structures of the lower mantle from probabilistic tomography. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117(B6).Google Scholar
Moulik, P., Lekic, V., Romanowicz, B. et al. (2021). Global reference seismological datasets: Multi-mode surface wave dispersion. Geophysical Journal International, 228(3).Google Scholar
Müller, R. D., Seton, M., Zahirovic, S. et al. (2016). Ocean basin evolution and global-scale plate reorganization events since Pangea breakup. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 44, 107–38.Google Scholar
Nelson, P. L., and Grand, S. P. (2018). Lower-mantle plume beneath the Yellowstone hotspot revealed by core waves. Nature Geoscience, 11(4), 280–4.Google Scholar
Ogg, J. G., Ogg, G. M., and Gradstein, F. M. eds. (2016). Introduction. In Ogg, J. G., Ogg, G. M., and Gradstein, F. M., eds., A Concise Geologic Time Scale. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Paulson, A., and Richards, M. A. (2009). On the resolution of radial viscosity structure in modelling long-wavelength postglacial rebound data. Geophysical Journal International, 179(3), 1516–26.Google Scholar
Pekeris, C. L. (1935). Thermal convection in the interior of the Earth. Geophysical Journal International, 3(8), 343–67.Google Scholar
Piazzoni, A. S., Steinle-Neumann, G., Bunge, H., and Dolejš, D. (2007). A mineralogical model for density and elasticity of the Earth’s mantle. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 8(11).Google Scholar
Price, M. G., and Davies, J. H. (2018). Profiling the robustness, efficiency and limits of the forward-adjoint method for 3D mantle convection modelling. Geophysical Journal International, 212(2), 1450–62.Google Scholar
Reiners, P. W., and Brandon, M. T. (2006). Using thermochronology to understand orogenic erosion. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 34(1), 419–66.Google Scholar
Reuber, G. S., and Simons, F. J. (2020). Multi-physics adjoint modeling of Earth structure: Combining gravimetric, seismic, and geodynamic inversions. GEM – International Journal on Geomathematics, 11, 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13137-020-00166-8.Google Scholar
Richards, M. A., and Hager, B. H. (1984). Geoid anomalies in a dynamic Earth. Journal of Geophysical Research, 89(B7), 5987–6002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritsema, J., Deuss, A., Van Heijst, H.-J., and Woodhouse, J. H. (2011). S40RTS: A degree-40 shear-velocity model for the mantle from new Rayleigh wave dispersion, teleseismic traveltime and normal-mode splitting function measurements. Geophysical Journal International, 184(3), 1223–36.Google Scholar
Roberts, G. G., and White, N. (2010). Estimating uplift rate histories from river profiles using African examples. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 115(B2), B02406.Google Scholar
Said, A., Moder, C., Clark, S., and Abdelmalak, M. M. (2015). Sedimentary budgets of the Tanzania coastal basin and implications for uplift history of the East African rift system. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 111, 288–95.Google Scholar
Said, A., Moder, C., Clark, S., and Ghorbal, B. (2015). Cretaceous-Cenozoic sedimentary budgets of the Southern Mozambique Basin: Implications for uplift history of the South African Plateau. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 109, 1–10.Google Scholar
Sandiford, M. (2007). The tilting continent: A new constraint on the dynamic topographic field from Australia. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 261(1-2), 152–63.Google Scholar
Schaber, K., Bunge, H.-P., Schuberth, B., Malservisi, R., and Horbach, A. (2009). Stability of the rotation axis in high-resolution mantle circulation models: Weak polar wander despite strong core heating. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 10, Q11W04. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GC002541.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, A. J., and Lebedev, S. (2013). Global shear speed structure of the upper mantle and transition zone. Geophysical Journal International, 194(1), 417–49.Google Scholar
Schuberth, B. S. A., Bunge, H.-P., and Ritsema, J. (2009). Tomographic filtering of high-resolution mantle circulation models: Can seismic heterogeneity be explained by temperature alone? Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 10(5).Google Scholar
Schuberth, B. S. A., Bunge, H.-P., Steinle-Neumann, G., Moder, C., and Oeser, J. (2009). Thermal versus elastic heterogeneity in high-resolution mantle circulation models with pyrolite composition: High plume excess temperatures in the lowermost mantle. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 10(1).Google Scholar
Schuberth, B. S. A., Zaroli, C., and Nolet, G. (2012). Synthetic seismograms for a synthetic Earth: Long-period Pand S-wave traveltime variations can be explained by temperature alone. Geophysical Journal International, 188(3), 1393–412.Google Scholar
Sengör, A. M. C. (2001). Elevation as indicator of mantle-plume activity. Mantle Plumes: Their identification through Time, 352, 183–245.Google Scholar
Seton, M., Müller, R. D., Zahirovic, S. et al. (2012). Global continental and ocean basin reconstructions since 200 Ma. Earth-Science Reviews, 113(3–4), 212–70.Google Scholar
Simmons, N. A., Myers, S. C., Johannesson, G., and Matzel, E. (2012). LLNL-G3Dv3: Global P-wave tomography model for improved regional and teleseismic travel time prediction. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 117(10), 1–28.Google Scholar
Simmons, N. A., Myers, S. C., Johannesson, G., Matzel, E., and Grand, S. P. (2015). Evidence for long-lived subduction of an ancient tectonic plate beneath the southern Indian Ocean. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(21), 9270–8.Google Scholar
Smith, A., Smith, D., and Funnel, B. (1994). Atlas of Mesozoic and Cenozoic landmasses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spasojevic, S., Liu, L., Gurnis, M., and Müller, R. D. (2008). The case for dynamic subsidence of the U.S. east coast since the Eocene. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(8).Google Scholar
Steinberger, B., and O’Connell, R. J. (1997). Changes of the Earth’s rotation axis owing to advection of mantle density heterogeneities. Nature, 387(6629), 169–73.Google Scholar
Stixrude, L., and Lithgow-Bertelloni, C. (2011). Thermodynamics of mantle minerals II. Phase equilibria. Geophysical Journal International, 184(3), 1180–213Google Scholar
Stotz, I. L., Tassara, A., and Iaffaldano, G. (2021). Pressure-driven Poiseuille flow inherited from Mesozoic mantle circulation led to the Eocene separation of Australia and Antarctica. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 126(4), e2020JB019945.Google Scholar
Torsvik, T. H., Müller, R. D., Van Der Voo, R., Steinberger, B., and Gaina, C. (2008). Global plate motion frames: Toward a unified model. Reviews of Geophysics, 46(3), RG3004.Google Scholar
Vibe, Y., Friedrich, A. M., Bunge, H.-P., and Clark, S. R. (2018). Correlations of oceanic spreading rates and hiatus surface area in the North Atlantic realm. Lithosphere, 10(5), 677–84.Google Scholar
Vynnytska, L., and Bunge, H. (2014). Restoring past mantle convection structure through fluid dynamic inverse theory: Regularisation through surface velocity boundary conditions. GEM – International Journal on Geomathematics, 6(1), 83–100.Google Scholar
Young, A., Flament, N., Maloney, K. et al. (2019). Global kinematics of tectonic plates and subduction zones since the late Paleozoic Era. Geoscience Frontiers, 10(3), 989–1013.Google Scholar
Zahirovic, S., Flament, N., Dietmar Müller, R., Seton, M., and Gurnis, M. (2016). Large fluctuations of shallow seas in low-lying Southeast Asia driven by mantle flow. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 17(9), 3589–607.Google Scholar
Zaroli, C. (2016). Global seismic tomography using Backus-Gilbert inversion. Geophysical Journal International, 207(2), 876–88.Google Scholar
Zaroli, C., Sambridge, M., Le´veˆque, J.-J., Debayle, E., and Nolet, G. (2013). An objective rationale for the choice of regularisation parameter with application to global multiple-frequency S-wave tomography. Solid Earth, 4(2), 357–71.Google Scholar
Zhong, S. J., Yuen, D. A., Moresi, L. N., and Knepley, M. G. (2015). Numerical methods for mantle convection, in Bercovici, D., ed., Treatise on Geophysics. Vol. 7: Mantle Dynamics, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 197–222.Google Scholar
Zhou, Q., and Liu, L. (2017). A hybrid approach to data assimilation for reconstructing the evolution of mantle dynamics. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 18(11), 3854–68.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×