We consider the topographic bias in gravimetric geoid determination when analytically downward continuing the disturbing potential from the Earth’s surface to sea level. The total bias is subdivided into those of the Bouguer shell or plate and the terrain. In this process, the potential of the Bouguer shell always has a downward continuation bias in the process, which increases with the square of the topographic height and typically exceeds 1−2 cm for elevations higher than 1 km. The main conclusion is that the terrain does not provide a potential bias except possibly for masses located inside a dome of height of about 0.4 times the height of the computation point, and base radius equal to the height of the computation point. This result implies that the potential of all terrain masses of arbitrary density located exterior to the Bouguer shell as well as those outside the dome are unbiasedly downward continued to sea level.

Due to different structures of the Earth’s crust and mantle, there is a significant density contrast at their boundary, the Moho Density Contrast (or shortly MDC). Frequently one assumes that the MDC is about 600 kg/m3, but seismic and gravimetric data show a considerable variation from region to region, and today there are few such studies, and global models are utterly rare. This research determines a new global model, called MDC21, which is a weighted least-squares combination of three available MDC models, pixel by pixel at a resolution of 1° × 1°. For proper weighting among the models, the study starts by estimating lacking standard errors and (frequently high) correlations among them. The numerical investigation shows that MDC21 varies from 21 to 504 kg/m3 in ocean areas and ranges from 132 to 629 kg/m3 in continental regions. The global average is 335 kg/m3. The standard errors estimated in ocean regions are mostly less than 40 kg/m3, while for continental regions it grows to 80 kg/m3. Most standard errors are small, but they reach to notable values in some specific regions. The estimated MDCs (as well as Moho depths) at mid-ocean ridges are small but show significant variations and qualities. © 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston 2022.

Recently a number of geoid campaigns were performed to verify different types of geoid and quasigeoid modeling techniques. Typically, GNSS-leveling was employed as an independent method, but in some cases zenith camera astronomic deflection data were also used in astrogeodetic determinations of the geoid and/or quasigeoid. However, due to the uncertainty in the topographic density distribution data (and thereby in orthometric heights), we conclude that neither GNSS-leveling nor astrogeodetic techniques can reliably verify differences between gravimetric geoid models at several centimeter levels in rough mountainous regions. This is because much the same topographic data are used both in the gravimetric geoid models and in their verifications by geometric and/or astrogeodetic geoid models. On the contrary, this is not a problem in verifying gravimetric quasigeoid models, as they are independent of the topographic density distribution, and so is the related normal height used in GNSS-leveling.

In this study, we present a new Moho depth model in Fennoscandia and its surroundings. The model is tailored from data sets of XGM2019e gravitationl field, Earth2014 topography and seismic crustal model CRUST1.0 using the Vening Meinesz-Moritz model based on isostatic theory to a resolution of 1° × 1°. To that end, the refined Bouguer gravity disturbance is determined by reducing the observed field for gravity effect of topography, density heterogeneities related to bathymetry, ice, sediments, and other crustal components. Moreover, stripping of non-isostatic effects of gravity signals from mass anomalies below the crust due to crustal thickening/thinning, thermal expansion of the mantle, Delayed Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (DGIA), i.e., the effect of future GIA, and plate flexure has also been performed. As Fennoscandia is a key area for GIA research, we particularly investigate the DGIA effect on the gravity disturbance and gravimetric Moho depth determination in this area. One may ask whether the DGIA effect is sufficiently well removed in the application of the general non-isostatic effects in such an area, and to answer this question, the Moho depth is determined both with and without specific removal of the DGIA effect prior to non-isostatic effect and Moho depth determinations. The numerical results yield that the RMS difference of the Moho depth from our model HVMD19 vs. the seismic CRUST19 and GRAD09 models are 3.8/4.2 km and 3.7/4.0 km when the above strategy for removing the DGIA effect is/is not applied, respectively, and the mean value differences are 1.2/1.4 km and 0.98/1.4 km, respectively. Hence, our study shows that the specific correction for the DGIA effect on gravity disturbance is slightly significant, resulting in individual changes in the gravimetric Moho depth up to − 1.3 km towards the seismic results. On the other hand, our study shows large discrepancies between gravimetric and seismic Moho models along the Norwegian coastline, which might be due to uncompensated non-isostatic effects caused by tectonic motions.

Arne Bjerhammar is well known worldwide mainly for his research in physical geodesy but also for introducing a new matrix algebra with generalized inverses applied in geodetic adjustment. Less known are his developments in geodetic engineering and contributions to satellite and relativistic geodesy as well as studies on the relation between the Fennoscandia land uplift and the regional gravity low. Most likely part of his research has contributed to worldwide political relaxation during the cold war, which deed was honored by a certificate of achievement awarded by the Department of Research of the US army as well as the North Star Order by the King of Sweden. Arne Bjerhammar’s pioneer scientific production, in particular on a world geodetic system, towards what would become GPS, as well as relativistic geodesy, is still of great interest among the worldwide geodetic community, while the memories and spirit along his outstanding academic deeds have more or less fainted away from his home university (KTH) only a decade after he passed away.

As recovering the crust-mantle/Moho density contrast (MDC) significantly depends on the properties of the Earth’s crust and upper mantle, varying from place to place, it is an oversimplification to define a constant standard value for it. It is especially challenging in Antarctica, where almost all the bedrock is covered with a thick layer of ice, and seismic data cannot provide a sufficient spatial resolution for geological and geophysical applications. As an alternative, we determine the MDC in Antarctica and its surrounding seas with a resolution of 1°x 1° by the Vening Meinesz-Moritz gravimetric-isostatic technique using the XGM2019e Earth Gravitational Model and Earth2014 topographic/bathymetric information along with CRUST1.0 and CRUST19 seismic crustal models. The numerical results show that our model, named HVMDC20, varies from 81 kg m-3 in the Pacific Antarctic mid-oceanic ridge to 579 kg m-3 in the Gamburtsev Mountain Range in the central continent with a general average of 403 kg m-3. To assess our computations, we compare our estimates with those of some other gravimetric as well as seismic models (KTH11, GEMMA12C, KTH15C and CRUST1.0), illustrating that our estimates agree fairly well with KTH15C and CRUST1.0 but rather poor with the other models. In addition, we compare the geological signatures with HVMDC20, showing how the main geological structures contribute to the MDC. Finally, we study the remaining glacial isostatic adjustment effect on gravity to figure out how much it affects the MDC recovery, yielding a correlation of the optimum spectral window (7< n <12) between XGM2019e and W12a GIA models of the order of ~0.6 contributing within a negligible \pm 14 kg m-3 to the MDC. 

This chapter describes a theory and application of satellite gravity and altimetry data for determining Moho constituents (i.e. Moho depth and density contrast) with support from a seismic Moho model in a least-squares adjustment. It presents and applies the Vening Meinesz-Moritz gravimetric-isostatic model in recovering the global Moho features. Internal and external uncertainty estimates are also determined. Special emphasis is devoted to presenting methods for eliminating the so-called non-isostatic effects, i.e. the gravimetric signals from the Earth both below the crust and from partly unknown density variations in the crust and effects due to delayed Glacial Isostatic Adjustment as well as for capturing Moho features not related with isostatic balance. The global means of the computed Moho depths and density contrasts are 23.8±0.05 km and 340.5 ± 0.37 kg/m3, respectively. The two Moho features vary between 7.6 and 70.3 km as well as between 21.0 and 650.0 kg/m3. Validation checks were performed for our modeled crustal depths using a recently published seismic model, yielding an RMS difference of 4 km.

As the KTH method for geoid determination by combining Stokes integration of gravity data in a spherical cap around the computation point and a series of spherical harmonics suffers from a bias due to truncation of the data sets, this method is based on minimizing the global mean square error (MSE) of the estimator. However, if the harmonic series is increased to a sufficiently high degree, the truncation error can be considered as negligible, and the optimization based on the local variance of the geoid estimator makes fair sense. Such unbiased types of estimators, derived in this article, have the advantage to the MSE solutions not to rely on the imperfectly known gravity signal degree variances, but only the local error covariance matrices of the observables come to play. Obviously, the geoid solution defined by the local least variance is generally superior to the solution based on the global MSE. It is also shown, at least theoretically, that the unbiased geoid solutions based on the KTH method and remove–compute–restore technique with modification of Stokes formula are the same. © 2020, The Author(s).

In this research, we present a local Moho model, named MOHV19, including Moho depth and Moho density contrast (or shortly Moho constituents) with corresponding uncertainties, which are mapped from altimetric and gravimetric data (DSNSC08) in addition to seismic tomographic (CRUST1.0) and Earth topographic data (Earth2014) to a resolution of 1° × 1° based on a solution of Vening Meinesz-Moritz' theory of isostasy. The MOHV19 model covers the area of entire European plate along with the surrounding oceans, bounded by latitudes (30 °N–82 °N) and longitudes (40 °W–70 °E). The article aims to interpret the Moho model resulted via altimetric and gravimetric information from the geological and geophysical perspectives along with investigating the relation between the Moho depth and Moho density contrast. Our numerical results show that estimated Moho depths range from 7.5 to 57.9 km with continental and oceanic averages of 41.3 ± 4.9 km and 21.6 ± 9.2 km, respectively, and an overall average of 30.9 ± 12.3 km. The estimated Moho density contrast ranges from 60.2 to 565.8 kg/m3, with averages of 421.8 ± 57.9 and 284.4 ± 62.9 kg/m3 for continental and oceanic regions, respectively, with a total average of 350.3 ± 91.5 kg/m3. In most areas, estimated uncertainties in the Moho constituents are less than 3 km and 40 kg/m3, respectively, but they reach to much more significant values under Iceland, parts of Gulf of Bothnia and along the Kvitoya Island. Comparing the Moho depths estimated by MOHV19 and those derived by CRUST1.0, MDN07, GRAD09 and MD19 models shows that MOHV19 agree fairly well with CRUST1.0 but rather poor with other models. The RMS difference between the Moho density contrasts estimated by MOHV19 and CRUST1.0 models is 49.45 kg/m3.