Premium
A GPS velocity field for Fennoscandia and a consistent comparison to glacial isostatic adjustment models
Author(s) -
Kierulf Halfdan Pascal,
Steffen Holger,
Simpson Matthew James Ross,
Lidberg Martin,
Wu Patrick,
Wang Hansheng
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: solid earth
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.983
H-Index - 232
eISSN - 2169-9356
pISSN - 2169-9313
DOI - 10.1002/2013jb010889
Subject(s) - post glacial rebound , reference frame , global positioning system , geology , geodesy , tectonics , intraplate earthquake , glacial period , deformation (meteorology) , frame of reference , field (mathematics) , frame (networking) , geophysics , seismology , geomorphology , computer science , physics , mathematics , telecommunications , pure mathematics , oceanography , quantum mechanics
In Fennoscandia, the process of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) drives ongoing crustal deformation. Crustal velocities from GPS observations have proved to be a useful tool in constraining GIA models. However, reference frame uncertainties, plate tectonics, intraplate deformations as well as other geophysical processes contaminate the results. Former studies have shown that different International Terrestrial Reference Frames have large discrepancies, especially in the vertical component, which hamper geophysical interpretation. We present new velocity estimates for the Fennoscandian and North European GPS network. Our GPS velocity field is directly realized in a GIA reference frame. Using this method (named the GIA frame approach) we are able to constrain GIA models with minimal influence of errors in the reference frame or biasing signals from plate tectonics. The drawbacks are more degrees of freedom that might mask real but unmodeled signals. Monte Carlo tests suggest that our approach is robust at the 97% level in terms of correctly separating different models of ice history but, depending on deformation patterns, the identified Earth model may be slightly biased in up to 39% of cases. We compare our results to different one‐ and three‐dimensional GIA models employing different global ice‐load histories. The GIA models generally provide good fit to the data but there are still significant discrepancies in some areas. We suggest that these differences are mainly related to inaccuracies in the ice models and/or lateral inhomogeneities in the Earth structure under Fennoscandia. Thus, GIA models still need to be improved, but the GIA frame approach provides a base for further improvements.