LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
A. Lodge; Monika Korte; R. Holme (2008)
Types: Conference object
Subjects:
We compare predictions of the geomagnetic field in Europe from 1590 to 1800 AD from a field model from archaeomagnetic data in Europe, developed for archaeomagnetic dating and from the historical field model gufm1 (Jackson et al., 2000). A consistent discrepancy pre-1800 AD is observed in inclination (I), with gufm1 producing higher values of I than those predicted from archaeomagnetic data. Between 1590 and 1800 AD there are 354 archaeomagnetic data and 133 historical data; in general, the archaeomagnetic data are in Eastern Europe and the historical data in Western Europe (and the Atlantic). Thus if the two data sets were combined, they would provide much better spatial resolution; however, the apparent discrepancy between the datasets makes simple simultaneous modelling problematic. Is this offset to higher I values an indication of a systematically lower value of I measured in archaeomagnetic materials? Alternatively is this discrepancy caused because of inadequate error estimates? When long time series of historical data at single locations, e.g. London and Paris are plotted, it can be clearly seen that the scatter in I is substantially higher pre-1800 AD than post-1800 AD, but the quality is still likely to be higher than from archaeomagnetic measurements. We are currently testing improvements to the handling of errors in our models by considering correlation of temporal errors and also using the gradient of the current model iteration to convert temporal errors into measurement errors. We present comparisons of models produced using these different error calculations and discuss their effect on the discrepancy between archaeomagnetic models and gufm1.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article