Journal cover Journal topic
Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 1.023 IF 1.023
  • IF 5-year<br/> value: 1.557 IF 5-year
    1.557
  • CiteScore<br/> value: 0.86 CiteScore
    0.86
  • SNIP value: indexed SNIP
    indexed
  • SJR value: indexed SJR
    indexed
  • IPP value: indexed IPP
    indexed
  • h5-index value: 10 h5-index 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-2017-24
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Research article
07 Apr 2017
Review status
This discussion paper is a preprint. A revision of this manuscript was accepted for the journal Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems (GI) and is expected to appear here in due course.
USGS Experience with the Residual Absolutes Method
E. William Worthington1 and Jurgen Matzka2 1U. S. Geological Survey, Geomagnetism Program, PO Box 25046, MS 966, Denver, CO 80225, USA
2GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Telegrafenberg, 14473, Potsdam, Germany
Abstract. The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) Geomagnetism Program has developed and tested the Residual Method of Absolutes, with the assistance of the Danish Technical University's (DTU) Geomagnetism Program. The computations of the absolute and baseline values are presented with improved calculations, such as the exact conversion from nanoTeslas (nT) to degrees. Three years of testing were performed at College Magnetic Observatory (CMO) to compare the Residual method with the Null method. Results show that the two methods compare very well with each other and both sets of baseline data were used to process the 2015 Definitive data. The Residual method is also being used at the Deadhorse Magnetic Observatory and will be implemented at the other USGS high latitude geomagnetic observatories in the summer of 2017.

Citation: Worthington, E. W. and Matzka, J.: USGS Experience with the Residual Absolutes Method, Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-2017-24, in review, 2017.
E. William Worthington and Jurgen Matzka
Interactive discussionStatus: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version      Supplement - Supplement
 
RC1: 'review Lars W. Pedersen', Lars W. Pedersen, 29 May 2017 Printer-friendly Version Supplement 
AC1: 'Reply to Lars Pedersen's Comments', Bill Worthington, 14 Jul 2017 Printer-friendly Version 
 
RC2: 'review in Supplement as pdf file', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Jun 2017 Printer-friendly Version Supplement 
AC2: 'Response to Referee #2 (Anonymous)', Bill Worthington, 14 Jul 2017 Printer-friendly Version 
E. William Worthington and Jurgen Matzka
E. William Worthington and Jurgen Matzka

Viewed

Total article views: 344 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
281 50 13 344 4 11

Views and downloads (calculated since 07 Apr 2017)

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 07 Apr 2017)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 344 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

Thereof 338 with geography defined and 6 with unknown origin.

Country # Views %
  • 1

Saved

Discussed

Latest update: 25 Sep 2017
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
We have compared two methods of performing Absolute observations of the Earth's magnetic field. The newer, Residual method was evaluated for use at USGS geomagnetic observatories and compared with measurements using the traditional Null method. A mathematical outline of the Residual method is presented, including more precise conversions of the Declination angles to nanoTeslas (nT). Results show that the Residual method is better than the Null method, especially at high latitude.
We have compared two methods of performing Absolute observations of the Earth's magnetic field. ...
Share