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-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:38:37.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

21 - Understanding and Predicting Geomagnetic Secular Variation via Data Assimilation

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2023

By
Weijia Kuang ,
Kyle Gwirtz ,
Andrew Tangborn  and
Matthias Morzfeld
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: Geomagnetic data assimilation is a recently established research discipline in geomagnetism. It aims to optimally combine geomagnetic observations and numerical geodynamo models to better estimate the dynamic state of the Earth’s outer core, and to predict geomagnetic secular variation. Over the past decade, rapid advances have been made in geomagnetic data assimilation on various fronts by several research groups around the globe, such as using geomagnetic data assimilation to understand and interpret the observed geomagnetic secular variation, estimating part of the core state that is not observable on the Earth’s surface, and making geomagnetic forecasts on multi-year time scales. In parallel, efforts have also been made on proxy systems for understanding fundamental statistical properties of geomagnetic data assimilation, and for developing algorithms tailored specifically for geomagnetic data assimilation. In this chapter, we provide a comprehensive overview of these advances, as well as some of the immediate challenges of geomagnetic data assimilation, and possible solutions and pathways to move forward.

Keywords

core dynamicscore-mantle boundarydata assimilationdynamo modelensemble Kalman Filterforecast accuracyforecast error covariancegeomagnetic fieldobservation errorsecular variation
Type
Chapter
Information
Applications of Data Assimilation and Inverse Problems in the Earth Sciences , pp. 326 - 340
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

Alken, P., Thébault, E., Beggan, C. D. et al. (2021a). International Geomagnetic Reference Field: The thirteenth generation. Earth, Planets and Space, 73, 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-020-01288-x.Google Scholar
Alken, P., Chulliat, A., and Nair, M. (2021b). NOAA/NCEI and University of Colorado candidate models for IGRF-13. Earth, Planets and Space, 73, 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623–020–01313–z.Google Scholar
Amit, H., Korte, M., Aubert, J., Constable, C., and Hulot, G. (2011). The time-dependence of intense archeomagnetic flux patches. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 116, B12106. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB008538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aubert, J. (2014). Earth’s core internal dynamics 1840–2010 imaged by inverse geodynamo modelling. Geophysical Journal International, 197, 1321–34.Google Scholar
Aubert, J. (2015). Geomagnetic forecasts driven by thermal wind dynamics in the Earth’s core. Geophysical Journal International, 203(3), 1738–51.Google Scholar
Aubert, J., and Finlay, C. C. (2019). Geomagnetic jerks and rapid hydromagnetic waves focusing at Earth’s core surface. Nature Geoscience, 12, 393–8.Google Scholar
Aubert, J., and Fournier, A. (2011). Inferring internal properties of Earth’s core dynamics and their evolution from surface observations and a numerical geodynamo model. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 18, 657–74.Google Scholar
Aubert, J., and Gillet, N. (2021). The interplay of fast waves and slow convection in geodynamo simulations nearing Earth’s core conditions. Geophysical Journal International, 225(3), 1854–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aubert, J., Gastine, T., and Fournier, A. (2017). Spherical convective dynamos in the rapidly rotating asymptotic regime. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 813, 558–93.Google Scholar
Bärenzung, J., Holschneider, M., Wicht, J., Lesur, V., and Sanchez, S. (2020). The Kalmag model as a candidate for IGRF-13. Earth, Planets and Space, 72(163).Google Scholar
Bärenzung, J., Holschneider, M., Wicht, J. Sanchez, S., and Lesur, V. (2018). Modeling and predicting the short-term evolution of the geomagnetic field. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 123(6), 4539–60.Google Scholar
Barrois, O., Hammer, M. D., Finlay, C. C., Martin, Y., and Gillet, N. (2018). Assimilation of ground and satellite magnetic measurements: inference of core surface magnetic and velocity field changes. Geophysical Journal International, 215(1), 695–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beggan, C. D., and Whaler, K. A. (2009). Forecasting change of the magnetic field using core surface flows and ensemble Kalman filtering. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L18303. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039927.Google Scholar
Beggan, C. D., and Whaler, K. A. (2010). Forecasting secular variation using core flows. Earth, Planets and Space, 62, 821–28.Google Scholar
Bloxham, J, Zatman, S., and Dumburry, M. (2002). The origin of geomagnetic jerks. Nature, 420, 65–68.Google Scholar
Bonavita, M., Isaksen, L., and Hólm, E. (2012). On the use of EDA background error variances in the ECMWF 4D-Var. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 138(667), 1540–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braginsky, S. I. (1970). Torsional magnetohydrodynamic vibrations in the Earth’s core and variation in day length. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, 10, 1–8.Google Scholar
Braginsky, S. I., and Roberts, P. H. (1995). Equations governing convection in Earth’s core and the geodynamo. Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, 79, 1–97.Google Scholar
Brown, M., Korte, M., Holme, R., Wardinski, I., and Gunnarson, S. (2018). Earth’s magnetic field is probably not reversing. PNAS, 115, 5111–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W. J., Beggan, C. D., Cox, G. A., and Macmillan, S. (2021). The BGS candidate models for IGRF-13 with a retrospective analysis of IGRF-12 secular variation forecasts. Earth, Planets and Space, 73 (42). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623–020–01301–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buehner, M., McTaggart-Cowan, R., and Heilliette, S. (2017). An Ensemble Kalman filter for numerical weather prediction based on variational data assimilation: VarEnKF. Monthly Weather Review, 145(2), 617–35.Google Scholar
Cande, S. C., and Kent, D. V. (1995). Revised calibration of the geomagnetic polarity timescale for the late Cretaceous and Cenozoic. Journal of Geophysical Research, 100, 6093–6095.Google Scholar
Canet, E., Fournier, A., and Jault, D. (2009). Forward and adjoint quasigeostrophyic models of geomagnetic secular variations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, B11101.Google Scholar
Chorin, A. J., and Morzfeld, M. (2013). Conditions for successful data assimilation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 118(20), 11522–33.Google Scholar
Christensen, U. R. (2010). Dynamo scaling laws and applications to the planets. Space, Science, Reviews, 152, 565–90.Google Scholar
Christensen, U.R., Aubert, J., Cardin, P. et al. (2001). A numerical dynamo benchmark. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 128(1), 25–34.Google Scholar
Chulliat, A., and Maus, S. (2014). Geomagnetic secular acceleration, jerks, and localized standing wave at the core surface from 2000 to 2010. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 119, 1531–43.Google Scholar
Constable, C., Korte, M., and Panovska, S. (2016). Persistent high paleosecular variation activity in southern hemisphere for at least 10000 years. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 453, 78–86.Google Scholar
Courtier, P. (1997). Variational methods. Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan, 75(1B), 211–18.Google Scholar
Cox, G. A., Livermore, P. W., and Mound, J. E. (2016). The observational signature of modelled torsional waves and comparison to geomagnetic jerks. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 255, 50–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deuss, A. (2014). Heterogeneity and anisotropy of Earth’s inner core. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 42, 103–26.Google Scholar
Doglioni, C., Pignatti, J., and Coleman, M. (2016). Why did life develop on the surface of the Earth in the Cambrian? Geoscience Frontiers, 7, 865–75.Google Scholar
Evensen, G. (2006). Data assimilation: The ensemble Kalman filter. Springer.Google Scholar
Finlay, C. C., and Jackson, A. (2003). Equatorially dominated magnetic field change at the surface of the Earth’s core. Science, 300, 2084–6.Google Scholar
Finlay, C. C., Maus, S., Beggan, C. D. et al. (2010). International Geomagnetic Reference Field: The eleventh generation. Geophysical Journal International, 183(3), 1216–30.Google Scholar
Finlay, C. C., Kloss, C., Olsen, N. et al. (2020). The CHAOS-7 geomagnetic field model and observed changes in the South Atlantic Anomaly. Earth, Planets and Space, 72, 156. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-020-01252-9.Google Scholar
Fournier, A., Eymin, C., and Alboussier, T. (2007). A case for variational geomagnetic data assimilation: Insights from a one-dimensional, nonlinear, and sparsely observed MHD system. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 14, 163–80.Google Scholar
Fournier, A., Aubert, J., and Thébault, E. (2011). Inference on core surface flow from observations and 3-D dynamo modelling. Geophysical Journal International, 186, 118–36.Google Scholar
Fournier, A., Nerger, L., and Aubert, J. (2013). An ensemble Kalman filter for the time-dependent analysis of the geomagnetic field. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 14(10), 4035–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/ggge.20252.Google Scholar
Fournier, A., Aubert, J., and Thébaut, E. (2015). A candidate secular variation model for IGRF-12 based on Swarm data and inverse geodynamo modeling. Earth, Planets and Space, 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623–015–0245–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fournier, A., Aubert, J., Lesur, V., and Thébault, E. (2021a). Physics-based secular variation candidate models for the IGRF. Earth, Planets and Space. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623–021–01507–z.Google Scholar
Fournier, A., Aubert, J., Lesur, V., and Ropp, G. (2021b). A secular variation candidate model for IGRF-13 based on Swarm data and ensemble inverse geodynamo modeling. Earth, Planets and Space. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623–020–01309–9.Google Scholar
Fournier, A. G., Hulot, G., Jault, D. et al. (2010). An introduction to data assimilation and predictability in geomagnetism. Space Science Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214–010–9669–4.Google Scholar
Garnero, E. J. (2000). Heterogeneity of the lowermost mantle. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 28, 509–37.Google Scholar
Gissinger, C. (2012). A new deterministic model for chaotic reversals. European Physical Journal B, 85, 137.Google Scholar
Glatzmaier, G. A., and Roberts, P. H. (1995). A three-dimensional convective dynamo solution with rotating and finitely conducting inner core and mantle. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 91, 63–75.Google Scholar
Gwirtz, K, Morzfeld, M, Fournier, A, and Hulot, G. (2020). Can one use Earth’s magnetic axial dipole field intensity to predict reversals? Geophysical Journal International, 225(1), 277–97.Google Scholar
Gwirtz, K., Morzfeld, M., Kuang, W., and Tangborn, A. (2021). A testbed for geomagnetic data assimilation. Geophysical Journal International, 227, 2180–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heirtzler, J. R., Allen, J. H., and Wilkinson, D. C. (2002). Everpresent South Atlantic Anomaly damages spacecraft. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 83(15), 165–9.Google Scholar
Hirose, K., Labrosse, S., and Hernlund, J. (2013). Composition and state of the core. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 41(1), 657–91.Google Scholar
Holme, R. (2007). Large-scale flow in the core. In Olson, P, ed., Treatise on Geophysics: Vol. 8. Core Dynamics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 107–30.Google Scholar
Huder, L., Gillet, N., Finlay, C. C., Hammer, M. D., and Tchoungui, H. (2020). COV-OBS.x2: 180 years of geomagnetic field evolution from ground-based and satellite observations. Earth, Planets and Space, 72(160). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623–020–01194–2.Google Scholar
Hulot, G., Eymin, C., Langlais, B., Mandea, M., and Olsen, N. (2002). Smallscale structure of the geodynamo inferred from Oested and Magsat satellite data. Nature, 416, 620–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/416620a.Google Scholar
Hulot, G., Lhuillier, F., and Aubert, J. (2010). Earth’s dynamo limit of predictability. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(6). https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL041869.Google Scholar
Hunt, B. R., Kostelich, E. J., and Szunyogh, I. (2007). Efficient data assimilation for spatiotemporal chaos: A local ensemble transform Kalman filter. Physica D, 230(1), 112–26.Google Scholar
Jackson, A. (2003). Intense equatorial flux spots on the surface of the Earth’s core. Nature, 424, 760–63.Google Scholar
Jackson, A., Jonkers, A. R. T., and Walker, M. R. (2000). Four centuries of geomagnetic secular variation from historical records. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 358(1768), 957–90.Google Scholar
Jault, D., Gire, C., and LeMouёl, J.-L. (1988). Westward drift, core motions and exchanges of angular momentum between core and mantle. Nature, 333, 353–6.Google Scholar
Jiang, W., and Kuang, W. (2008). An MPI-based MoSST core dynamics model. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 170(1), 46–51.Google Scholar
Jones, C. A., Boronski, P., Brun, A. et al. (2011). Anelastic convection-driven dynamo benchmarks. Icarus, 216, 120–35.Google Scholar
Kageyama, A., and Sato, T. (1997). Generation mechanism of a dipole field by a magnetohydrodynamic dynamo. Physical Review E, 55, 4617–26.Google Scholar
Kaji, C. V., Hoover, R. C., and Ragi, S. (2019). Underwater navigation using geomagnetic field variations. 2019 IEEE International Conference on Electro Information Technology. https://doi.org/10.1109/EIT.2019.8834192 of:Google Scholar
Kloss, C, and Finlay, C. C. (2019). Time-dependent low-latitude core flow and geomagnetic field acceleration pulses. Geophysical Journal International, 217(1), 140–68.Google Scholar
Kotsuki, S., Ota, Y., and Miyoshi, T. (2017). Adaptive covariance relaxation methods for ensemble data assimilation: experiments in the real atmosphere. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 143(705), 2001–15.Google Scholar
Kuang, W., and Bloxham, J. (1997). An Earth-like numerical dynamo model. Nature, 389, 371–4.Google Scholar
Kuang, W., and Bloxham, J. (1999). Numerical Modeling of Magnetohydrodynamic Convection in a Rapidly Rotating Spherical Shell: Weak and Strong Field Dynamo Action. J. Comput. Phys., 153(1), 51–81.Google Scholar
Kuang, W., and Chao, B. F. (2003). Geodynamo Modeling and Core-Mantle Interactions. In Dehant, V., Creager, K., Karato, S., and Zatman, S., eds., Earth’s Core: Dynamics, Structure, Rotation, Geodynamics Series 31. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union (AGU), pp. 193–212.Google Scholar
Kuang, W., and Tangborn, A. (2015). Dynamic responses of the Earth’s outer core to assimilation of observed geomagnetic secular variation. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40645–015–0071–4.Google Scholar
Kuang, W., Tangborn, A., Jiang, W. (2008). MoSST− DAS: The first generation geomagnetic data assimilation framework. Communications in Computational Physics, 3, 85–108.Google Scholar
Kuang, W., Tangborn, A., Wei, Z., and Sabaka, T. J. (2009). Constraining a numerical geodynamo model with 100 years of surface observations. Geophysical Journal International, 179(3), 1458–68, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365–246X.2009.04376.x.Google Scholar
Kuang, W., Wei, Z., Holme, R., and Tangborn, A. (2010). Prediction of geomagnetic field with data assimilation: a candidate secular variation model for IGRF-11. Earth, Planets and Space, 62, 775–85.Google Scholar
Kuang, W., Chao, B. F., and Chen, J. (2017). Decadal polar motion of the Earth excited by the convective outer core from geodynamo simulations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 122(10), 8459–73.Google Scholar
Langel, R. A., and Estes, R. H. (1982). A geomagnetic field spectrum. Geophysical Research Letters, 9, 250–3.Google Scholar
Larmor, J. (1919). How could a rotating body such as the Sun become a magnet? Reports of the British Association, 87, 159–60.Google Scholar
Lesur, V., Wardinski, I., Hamoudi, M., and Rother, M. (2010). The second generation of the GFZ internal magnetic model: GRIMM-2. Earth, Planets and Space, 62, 765–73.Google Scholar
Li, K., Jackson, A., and Livermore, P. W. (2011). Variational data assimilation for the initial-value dynamo problem. Physical Review E, 84. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.84.056321.Google Scholar
Li, K., Jackson, A., and Livermore, P. W. (2014). Variational data assimilation for a forced, inertia-free magnetohydrodynamic dynamo model. Geophysical Journal International, 199, 1662–76.Google Scholar
Liu, D., Tangborn, A., and Kuang, W. (2007). Observing system simulation experiments in geomagnetic data assimilation. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004691.Google Scholar
Lowrie, W., and Kent, D. V. (2004). Geomagnetic polarity time scale and reversal frequency regimes. Timescales of the paleomagnetic field, 145, 117–29.Google Scholar
Mandea, M., and Korte, M., eds. (2011). Geomagnetic Observations and Models. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Mandea, M., Holme, R., Pais, A. et al. (2010). Geomagnetic jerks: Rapid core field variations and core dynamics. Space Science Reviews, 155, 147–75.Google Scholar
Matsui, H., Heien, E., Aubert, J. (2016). Performance benchmarks for a next generation numerical dynamo model. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 17(5), 1586–607.Google Scholar
Maus, S., Silva, L., and Hulot, G. (2008). Can core-surface flow models be used to improve the forecast of the Earth’s main magnetic field? Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, B08102. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JB005199.Google Scholar
Minami, T., Nakano, S., Lesur, V. et al. (2020). A candidate secular variation model for IGRF-13 based on MHD dynamo simulation and 4DEnVar data assimilation. Earth, Planets and Space, 72, 136. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623–020–01253–8.Google Scholar
Morzfeld, M., and Buffett, B. A. (2019). A comprehensive model for the kyr and Myr timescales of Earth’s axial magnetic dipole field. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 26(3), 123–42.Google Scholar
Morzfeld, M., and Chorin, A. J. (2012). Implicit particle filtering for models with partial noise, and an application to geomagnetic data assimilation. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 19(3), 365–82.Google Scholar
Morzfeld, M., Fournier, A., and Hulot, G. (2017). Coarse predictions of dipole reversals by low-dimensional modeling and data assimilation. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 262, 8–27.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, T. (2020). A coupled core-mantle evolution: review and future prospects. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40645–020–00374–8.Google Scholar
Nilsson, A., Suttie, N., Korte, M., Holme, R., and Hill, M. (2020). Persistent westward drift of the geomagnetic field at the core-mantle boundary linked to recurrent high-latitude weak/reverse flux patches. Geophysical Journal International, 222, 1423–32.Google Scholar
Nimmo, F. (2007). Energetics of the core. In Olson, P, ed., Treatise on Geophysics: Vol. 8. Core Dynamics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 31–66.Google Scholar
Ogg, J. G. (2012). Geomagnetic polarity time scale. In Gradstein, F. M., Ogg, J. G., Schmitz, M., and Ogg, G., eds., The Geologic Time Scale 2012. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, pp. 85–113.Google Scholar
Olsen, N., and Mandea, M. (2008). Rapidly changing flows in the Earth’s core. Nature Geoscience, 1, 390–94.Google Scholar
Pais, M. A., and Jault, D. (2008). Quasi-geostrophyic flows responsible for the secular variation of the Earth’s magnetic field. Geophysical Journal International, 173, 421–43.Google Scholar
Panovska, S., Korte, M., and Constable, C. G. (2019). One hundred thousand years of geomagnetic field evolution. Reviews of Geophysics, 57(4), 1289–337.Google Scholar
Petitdemange, L. (2018). Systematic parameter study of dynamo bifurcations in geodynamo simulations. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 277, 113–32.Google Scholar
Pétrélis, F., Fauve, S., Dormy, E., and Valet, J.-P. (2009). Simple mechanism for reversals of Earth’s magnetic field. Physical Review Letters, 102, 144503.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. H., and Scott, S. (1965). On analysis of the secular variation. Journal of Geomagnetism and Geoelectricity, 17, 137–51.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. H, and King, E. M. (2013). On the genesis of the Earth’s magnetism. Reports on Progress in Physics, 76(9), 096801.Google Scholar
Sabaka, T. J., Tøffner-Clausen, L., Olsen, N., and Finlay, C. C. (2020). CM6: A comprehensive geomagnetic field model derived from both CHAMP and Swarm satellite observations. Earth, Planets and Space, 72, 80.Google Scholar
Sanchez, S., Fournier, A., Aubert, J., Cosme, E., and Gallet, Y. (2016). Modeling the archaeomagnetic field under spatial constraints from dynamo simulations: A resolution analysis. Geophysical Journal International, 207, 983–1002.Google Scholar
Sanchez, S., Wicht, J., Bärenzung, J., and Holschneider, M. (2019). Sequential assimilation of geomagnetic observations: Perspectives for the reconstruction and prediction of core dynamics. Geophysical Journal International, 217, 1434–50.Google Scholar
Sanchez, S., Wicht, J., Bärenzung, J., and Holschneider, M. (2020). Predictions of the geomagnetic secular variation based on the ensemble sequential assimilation of geomagnetic field models by dynamo simulations. Earth, Planets and Space, 72, 157. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623–020–01279–y.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, N., Lora Silva, E., and Pais, M. A. (2016). Can core flows inferred from geomagnetic field models explain the Earth’s dynamo? Geophysical Journal International, 204(2), 868–77.Google Scholar
Shlyaeva, A., Whitaker, J. S., and Snyder, C. (2019). Model-space localization in serial ensemble filters. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 11(6), 1627–36.Google Scholar
Sun, Z., and Kuang, W. (2015). An ensemble algorithm based component for geomagnetic data assimilation. Terrestrial Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, 26, 53–61.Google Scholar
Sun, Z., Tangborn, A., and Kuang, W. (2007). Data assimilation in a sparsely observed one-dimensional modeled MHD system. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 14, 181–92.Google Scholar
Talagrand, O., and Courtier, P. (1987). Variational assimilation of meteorological observations with the adjoint vorticity equation. I: Theory. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 113(478), 1311–28.Google Scholar
Tangborn, A., and Kuang, W. (2015). Geodynamo model and error parameter estimation using geomagnetic data assimilation. Geophysical Journal International, 200, 664–75.Google Scholar
Tangborn, A., and Kuang, W. (2018). Impact of archeomagnetic field model data on modern era geomagnetic forecasts. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 276, 2–9.Google Scholar
Tangborn, A., Kuang, W., Sabaka, T. J., and Yi, C. (2021). Geomagnetic secular variation forecast using the NASA GEMS ensemble Kalman filter: A candidate SV model for IGRF-13. Earth, Planets and Space, 73, 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623–020–01324–w.Google Scholar
Tippett, M. K., Anderson, J. L., Bishop, C. H., Hamill, T. M., and Whitaker, J. S. (2003). Ensemble square root filters. Monthly Weather Review, 131, 1485–90.Google Scholar
Wicht, J., and Christensen, U. R. (2010). Torsional oscillations in dynamo simulations. Geophysical Journal International, 181, 1367–80.Google Scholar
Wicht, J., and Sanchez, S. (2019). Advances in geodynamo modelling. Geophysical & Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, 113(1–2), 2–50.Google Scholar
Yadav, R. K., Gastine, T., and Christensen, U. R. (2013). Scaling laws in spherical shell dynamos with free-slip boundaries. Icarus, 225, 185–93.Google Scholar
Zhang, M., and Zhang, F. (2012). E4DVar: Coupling an ensemble Kalman filter with four-dimensional variational data assimilation in a limited-area weather prediction model. Monthly Weather Review, 140(2), 587–600.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×