The Viscosity of the Top 700 km of the Lower Mantle estimated using GPS, GRACE, and Relative Sea Level measurements of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Argus ◽  
W. Richard Peltier ◽  
Geoff Blewitt ◽  
Corne Kreemer ◽  
Matteo Vacchi
Keyword(s):  
Solid Earth ◽  
Lower Mantle ◽  
Time History ◽  
Laurentide Ice Sheet ◽  
Isostatic Adjustment ◽  
Mantle Viscosity ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Uplift Rates ◽  
Elastic Loading ◽  
Technical Advances

<p>We distinguish between two models of solid Earth's viscous response to unloading of the Laurentide ice sheet over the past 26,000 years.  The upper mantle viscosity in both models is 0.5 x 10<sup>21</sup> Pa s.  The viscosity of the top 700 km of the lower mantle (670 –1370 km) in model L17 is 13 x 10<sup>21</sup> Pa s, eight times larger than the value of 1.6 x 10<sup>21</sup> Pa s in ICE-6G_D (VM5a).  In ICE-6G_D (VM5a), viscous relaxation of solid Earth was rapid 8,000 years ago and is slow today, with present-day uplift at the Laurentide ice center being 12 mm/yr.  In L17, solid Earth relaxed more slowly 8,000 years ago but is faster today, with present uplift of the ice center at 20 mm/yr.  The significant difference is not due to different ice histories given that total ice loss in L17 is just 12% less than in ICE-6G_D.  We determine a comprehensive set of GPS uplift rates for North America that is more accurate than in prior studies due to (1) more sites and a longer data time history, (2) removal of elastic loading produced by increase in Great Lakes water, and (3) technical advances in GPS positioning that have significantly reduced the dispersion in position estimates.  We find uplift at the ice center to be about 12 mm/yr, supporting low value of the viscosity of the top 700 km of the lower mantle in ICE-6G_D (VM5a), but ruling out the high value in L17.</p>

3D glacial-isostatic adjustment models using geodynamically constrained Earth structures

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meike Bagge ◽  
Volker Klemann ◽  
Bernhard Steinberger ◽  
Milena Latinović ◽  
Maik Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Solid Earth ◽  
Sea Level ◽  
Ice Sheet ◽  
Sea Level Change ◽  
Glacial Isostatic Adjustment ◽  
Level Change ◽  
Isostatic Adjustment ◽  
Mantle Viscosity ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Earth Structures

<p>The interaction between ice sheets and the solid Earth plays an important role for ice-sheet stability and sea-level change and hence for global climate models. Glacial-isostatic adjustment (GIA) models enable simulation of the solid Earth response due to variations in ice-sheet and ocean loading and prediction of the relative sea-level change. Because the viscoelastic response of the solid Earth depends on both ice-sheet distribution and the Earth’s rheology, independent constraints for the Earth structure in GIA models are beneficial. Seismic tomography models facilitate insights into the Earth’s interior, revealing lateral variability of the mantle viscosity that allows studying its relevance in GIA modeling. Especially, in regions of low mantle viscosity, the predicted surface deformations generated with such 3D GIA models differ considerably from those generated by traditional GIA models with radially symmetric structures. But also, the conversion from seismic velocity variations to viscosity is affected by a set of uncertainties. Here, we apply geodynamically constrained 3D Earth structures. We analyze the impact of conversion parameters (reduction factor in Arrhenius law and radial viscosity profile) on relative sea-level predictions. Furthermore, we focus on exemplary low-viscosity regions like the Cascadian subduction zone and southern Patagonia, which coincide with significant ice-mass changes.</p>

scholarly journals GRACE constraints on Earth rheology of the Barents Sea and Fennoscandia

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Rovira-Navarro ◽  
Wouter van der Wal ◽  
Valentina R. Barletta ◽  
Bart C. Root ◽  
Louise Sandberg Sørensen
Keyword(s):  
Solid Earth ◽  
Upper Mantle ◽  
Barents Sea ◽  
Ice Sheet ◽  
Lithospheric Thickness ◽  
Isostatic Adjustment ◽  
Mantle Viscosity ◽  
The Barents Sea ◽  
Grace Data ◽  
Geodynamic Models

Abstract. The Barents Sea is situated on a continental margin and was home to a large ice sheet at the Last Glacial Maximum. Studying the solid Earth response to the removal of this ice sheet (Glacial Isostatic Adjustment, GIA) can give insight in the sub-surface structure in this region. However, because the region is currently covered by ocean, uplift measurements from the center of the former ice sheet are not available, but GRACE data has been shown to be able to constrain GIA. Here we analyze GRACE data for the period 2003–2015 in the Barents Sea and use it to constrain a GIA models for the region. We study the effect of uncertainty in non-tidal ocean mass models that are used to correct GRACE data and find that it is not negligible and should be taken into account when studying solid Earth signals in oceanic areas from GRACE. We compare the obtained gravity rates with GIA model predictions for different ice deglaciation chronologies and infer a lower bound for the Earth's upper mantle viscosity of 2·1020 Pa·s. Following a similar procedure for Fennoscandia we find that the preferred upper mantle viscosity there is a factor 2 larger than in the Barents Sea for a range of lithospheric thickness values. This factor is shown to be consistent with the ratio of viscosities derived for both regions from global seismic models. The viscosity difference can serve as constraint for geodynamic models of the area.

scholarly journals Feedbacks between a non-Newtonian upper mantle, mantle viscosity structure and mantle dynamics

2020 ◽  
Vol 224 (2) ◽  
pp. 961-972
Author(s):  
A G Semple ◽  
A Lenardic
Keyword(s):  
Upper Mantle ◽  
Lower Mantle ◽  
Mantle Convection ◽  
Mantle Flow ◽  
Mantle Dynamics ◽  
Plate Motions ◽  
Low Viscosity ◽  
Mantle Viscosity ◽  
Flow Feature ◽  
Mantle Rheology

SUMMARY Previous studies have shown that a low viscosity upper mantle can impact the wavelength of mantle flow and the balance of plate driving to resisting forces. Those studies assumed that mantle viscosity is independent of mantle flow. We explore the potential that mantle flow is not only influenced by viscosity but can also feedback and alter mantle viscosity structure owing to a non-Newtonian upper-mantle rheology. Our results indicate that the average viscosity of the upper mantle, and viscosity variations within it, are affected by the depth to which a non-Newtonian rheology holds. Changes in the wavelength of mantle flow, that occur when upper-mantle viscosity drops below a critical value, alter flow velocities which, in turn, alter mantle viscosity. Those changes also affect flow profiles in the mantle and the degree to which mantle flow drives the motion of a plate analogue above it. Enhanced upper-mantle flow, due to an increasing degree of non-Newtonian behaviour, decreases the ratio of upper- to lower-mantle viscosity. Whole layer mantle convection is maintained but upper- and lower-mantle flow take on different dynamic forms: fast and concentrated upper-mantle flow; slow and diffuse lower-mantle flow. Collectively, mantle viscosity, mantle flow wavelengths, upper- to lower-mantle velocities and the degree to which the mantle can drive plate motions become connected to one another through coupled feedback loops. Under this view of mantle dynamics, depth-variable mantle viscosity is an emergent flow feature that both affects and is affected by the configuration of mantle and plate flow.

Observations of postglacial uplift at Churchill, Manitoba

1992 ◽  
Vol 29 (11) ◽  
pp. 2418-2425 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Mark Tushingham
Keyword(s):  
Sea Level ◽  
Tide Gauge ◽  
Ice Sheet ◽  
Laurentide Ice Sheet ◽  
Glacial Isostatic Adjustment ◽  
Tide Gauge Record ◽  
Isostatic Adjustment ◽  
Absolute Gravimetry ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Level Data

Churchill, Manitoba, is located near the centre of postglacial uplift caused by the Earth's recovery from the melting of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. The value of present-day uplift at Churchill has important implications in the study of postglacial uplift in that it can aid in constraining the thickness of the ice sheet and the rheology of the Earth. The tide-gauge record at Churchill since 1940 is examined, along with nearby Holocene relative sea-level data, geodetic measurements, and recent absolute gravimetry measurements, and a present-day rate of uplift of 8–9 mm/a is estimated. Glacial isostatic adjustment models yield similar estimates for the rate of uplift at Churchill. The effects of the tide-gauge record of the diversion of the Churchill River during the mid-1970's are discussed.

scholarly journals Comparing a thermo-mechanical Weichselian ice sheet reconstruction to GIA driven reconstructions: aspects of earth response and ice configuration

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 2345-2388 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Schmidt ◽  
B. Lund ◽  
J-O. Näslund
Keyword(s):  
Sea Level ◽  
Ice Sheet ◽  
Younger Dryas ◽  
Slow Phase ◽  
Glacial Isostatic Adjustment ◽  
Relative Sea Level ◽  
Isostatic Adjustment ◽  
Earth Models ◽  
Uplift Rates ◽  
Best Fit

Abstract. In this study we compare a recent reconstruction of the Weichselian ice-sheet as simulated by the University of Main ice-sheet model (UMISM) to two reconstructions commonly used in glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) modeling: ICE-5G and ANU (also known as RSES). The UMISM reconstruction is carried out on a regional scale based on thermo-mechanical modelling whereas ANU and ICE-5G are global models based on the sea-level equation. The Weichselian ice-sheet in the three models are compared directly in terms of ice volume, extent and thickness, as well as in terms of predicted glacial isostatic adjustment in Fennoscandia. The three reconstructions display significant differences. UMISM and ANU includes phases of pronounced advance and retreat prior to the last glacial maximum (LGM), whereas the thickness and areal extent of the ICE-5G ice-sheet is more or less constant up until LGM. The final retreat of the ice-sheet initiates at earliest time in ICE-5G and latest in UMISM, while ice free conditions are reached earliest in UMISM and latest in ICE-5G. The post-LGM deglaciation style also differs notably between the ice models. While the UMISM simulation includes two temporary halts in the deglaciation, the later during the Younger Dryas, ANU only includes a decreased deglaciation rate during Younger Dryas and ICE-5G retreats at a relatively constant pace after an initial slow phase. Moreover, ANU and ICE-5G melt relatively uniformly over the entire ice-sheet in contrast to UMISM which melts preferentially from the edges. We find that all three reconstructions fit the present day uplift rates over Fennoscandia and the observed relative sea-level curve along the Ångerman river equally well, albeit with different optimal earth model parameters. Given identical earth models, ICE-5G predicts the fastest present day uplift rates and ANU the slowest, ANU also prefers the thinnest lithosphere. Moreover, only for ANU can a unique best fit model be determined. For UMISM and ICE-5G there is a range of earth models that can reproduce the present day uplift rates equally well. This is understood from the higher present day uplift rates predicted by ICE-5G and UMISM, which results in a bifurcation in the best fit mantle viscosity. Comparison of the uplift histories predicted by the ice-sheets indicate that inclusion of relative sea-level data in the data fit can reduce the observed ambiguity. We study the areal distributions of present day residual surface velocities in Fennoscandia and show that all three reconstructions generally over-predict velocities in southwestern Fennoscandia and that there are large differences in the fit to the observational data in Finland and northernmost Sweden and Norway. These difference may provide input to further enhancements of the ice-sheet reconstructions.

scholarly journals Glacial Isostatic Adjustment modelling: historical perspectives, recent advances, and future directions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pippa L. Whitehouse
Keyword(s):  
Solid Earth ◽  
Sea Level ◽  
Measurement Techniques ◽  
Ice Sheets ◽  
Order Effects ◽  
System Modelling ◽  
Glacial Isostatic Adjustment ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Historical Perspectives ◽  
Isostatic Adjustment

Abstract. Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) describes the response of the solid Earth, the gravitational field, and consequently the oceans to the growth and decay of the global ice sheets. It is a process that takes place relatively rapidly, triggering 100 m-scale changes in sea level and solid Earth deformation over just a few tens of thousands of years. Indeed, the first-order effects of GIA could already be quantified several hundred years ago without reliance on precise measurement techniques and scientists have been developing a unifying theory for the observations for over 200 years. Progress towards this goal required a number of significant breakthroughs to be made, including the recognition that ice sheets were once more extensive, the solid Earth changes shape over time, and gravity plays a central role in determining the pattern of sea-level change. This article describes in detail the historical development of the field of GIA and an overview of the processes involved. Significant recent progress has been made as concepts associated with GIA have begun to be incorporated into parallel fields of research; these advances are discussed, along with the role that GIA is likely to play in addressing outstanding research questions within the field of Earth system modelling.

scholarly journals Lithosphere and upper-mantle structure of the southern Baltic Sea estimated from modelling relative sea-level data with glacial isostatic adjustment

Solid Earth ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 447-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Steffen ◽  
G. Kaufmann ◽  
R. Lampe
Keyword(s):  
Baltic Sea ◽  
Sea Level ◽  
Upper Mantle ◽  
Glacial Isostatic Adjustment ◽  
Relative Sea Level ◽  
Southern Baltic Sea ◽  
Lithospheric Thickness ◽  
Isostatic Adjustment ◽  
Mantle Viscosity ◽  
Ice Model

Abstract. During the last glacial maximum, a large ice sheet covered Scandinavia, which depressed the earth's surface by several 100 m. In northern central Europe, mass redistribution in the upper mantle led to the development of a peripheral bulge. It has been subsiding since the begin of deglaciation due to the viscoelastic behaviour of the mantle. We analyse relative sea-level (RSL) data of southern Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Poland and Lithuania to determine the lithospheric thickness and radial mantle viscosity structure for distinct regional RSL subsets. We load a 1-D Maxwell-viscoelastic earth model with a global ice-load history model of the last glaciation. We test two commonly used ice histories, RSES from the Australian National University and ICE-5G from the University of Toronto. Our results indicate that the lithospheric thickness varies, depending on the ice model used, between 60 and 160 km. The lowest values are found in the Oslo Graben area and the western German Baltic Sea coast. In between, thickness increases by at least 30 km tracing the Ringkøbing-Fyn High. In Poland and Lithuania, lithospheric thickness reaches up to 160 km. However, the latter values are not well constrained as the confidence regions are large. Upper-mantle viscosity is found to bracket [2–7] × 1020 Pa s when using ICE-5G. Employing RSES much higher values of 2 × 1021 Pa s are obtained for the southern Baltic Sea. Further investigations should evaluate whether this ice-model version and/or the RSL data need revision. We confirm that the lower-mantle viscosity in Fennoscandia can only be poorly resolved. The lithospheric structure inferred from RSES partly supports structural features of regional and global lithosphere models based on thermal or seismological data. While there is agreement in eastern Europe and southwest Sweden, the structure in an area from south of Norway to northern Germany shows large discrepancies for two of the tested lithosphere models. The lithospheric thickness as determined with ICE-5G does not agree with the lithosphere models. Hence, more investigations have to be undertaken to sufficiently determine structures such as the Ringkøbing-Fyn High as seen with seismics with the help of glacial isostatic adjustment modelling.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document