文章摘要

文章信息/Info

Title:: Consistency Analysis of the Monthly Variation of the Main Magnetic Field by the Global Geomagnetic Field Model and by the Geomagnetic Station in Xinjiang Area

作者:: 翟世龙¹; 黄静²; 雷晴¹; 麦麦提敏·图尔贡¹; 艾萨·伊斯马伊力¹; (1.新疆维吾尔自治区地震局,新疆乌鲁木齐 830011; 2.新疆农业大学水利与土木工程学院,新疆乌鲁木齐 830052)

Author(s):: ZHAI Shilong¹; HUANG Jing²; LEI Qing¹; MAIMAITIMIN Tuergong¹; AISA Ismaili¹; (1.Earthquake Agency of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region,Urumqi 830011,Xinjiang,China)(2.School of Water Conservancy and Civil Engineering,Xinjiang Agricultural University,Urumqi 830011,Xinjiang,China)

关键词:: CGGM模型; 新疆地区; 张衡一号; 主磁场; 逐月变化; 一致性

Keywords:: the Jiujiang-Ruichang earthquake; soil gas; geochemistry; Rn; CO₂

分类号:: P315.721

DOI:: 10.20015/j.cnki.ISSN1000-0666.2024.0017

摘要:: 对2018年8月—2022年7月新疆地区的5个地磁台站的观测数据进行剔除外源变化磁场的处理,同CGGM全球地磁场模型的主磁场计算值进行一致性分析。结果表明:①台站观测的月变化速率观测值要略大于模型计算值,磁偏角D、磁倾角I的最大月变化速率差为0.086 88',其它5个要素中最大月变化速率差仅为0.891 4 nT。②CGGM模型和IGRF13模型计算值F值的均方根误差相差26.7 nT,随着“张衡一号”地震电磁卫星数据的增多,CGGM模型的计算精度还会进一步提升。③台站观测和模型计算的逐月变化量偏差很小,表明CGGM模型计算值和台站观测值有较好的一致性。④通过提取静日子夜均值的方法并不能够完全剔除外源场的影响,台站观测逐月变化量中会有几个nT的剩余磁场叠加其中,导致了台站观测值和模型计算值逐月变化差值的离散程度略为增大。⑤后验比较分析表明,CGGM模型的长期变化主磁场预测值和台站观测值之间一致性较好,可以很好地描述主磁场的长期变化。

Abstract:: After having been eliminated their exogenous magnetic elements,the observed data at five geomagnetic stations in Xinjiang region from August 2018 to July 2022 are analyzed for their consistency with the calculated values of the main magnetic field by the China Seismo-Electromagnetic Satellite Global Geomagnetic Field Model(CGGM)based on the data observed by the China Seismo-Electromagnetic Satellite(CSES).The results show that:①The monthly change rate(SVS)of the geomagnetic value observed at the stations is slightly larger than the monthly change rate SV_M calculated by CGGM model.The difference of the maximum monthly change rate of magnetic declination D is 0.08688',and so is difference of the maximum monthly change rate of the magnetic inclination I.For other five magnetic elements,their own difference of the maximum monthly change rate is only 0.8914 nT.②The difference of the root mean square errors between the total geomagnetic intensity F calculated by CGGM model and the total geomagnetic intensity F calculated by the IGRF13 model is 26.7 nT.With the increase of the data from CSES,the computing accuracy of CGGM model will be improved.③Both the monthly variations of the values observed at the stations and the monthly variations of the calculated values by CGGM model have little deviation.The root-mean-square error of D ranges from 0.18' to 0.41'.The root-mean-square error of I ranges from 0.18' to 0.41' too.H ranges from 4.61 nT to 5.10 nT.Z ranges from 2.24 nT to 2.68 nT.F ranges from 2.15 nT to 2.47 nT.X varies from 4.89 nT to 5.24 nT,and Y varies from 1.42 nT to 1.80 nT.All these indicate that the calculated values by CGGM model have good consistency with the observed values by stations.④The influence of external field could not be completely eliminated by extracting the mean value of the static day and static night.There would be several nanoteslas of magnetic residual superimposed in the monthly variation of the observed values at the station,resulting in a slight increase in the standard deviation of the monthly variation difference between the observed values at the station and the values calculated by the model.⑤The posterior comparative analysis shows that the long-term variation of the main magnetic field predicted by the CGGM model is in good agreement with the observed value at the station; the predicted values can well describe the long-term variation of the main magnetic field.

《地震研究》[ISSN:1000-0666/CN:53-1062/P]

文章信息/Info

参考文献/References:

备注/Memo

常用功能

导航/Navigate

工具/Tools

统计/Statistics