U.S. Geological Survey experience with the residual absolutes method

Worthington, E. William; Matzka, Jürgen

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-6-419-2017

Articles | Volume 6, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-6-419-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Special issue:

The Earth’s magnetic field: measurements, data, and applications...

https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-6-419-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 6, issue 2

Research article

|

17 Oct 2017

Research article |

| 17 Oct 2017

U.S. Geological Survey experience with the residual absolutes method

E. William Worthington and Jürgen Matzka

Download

Final revised paper (published on 17 Oct 2017)
Preprint (discussion started on 07 Apr 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'review Lars W. Pedersen', Lars W. Pedersen, 29 May 2017
- AC1: 'Reply to Lars Pedersen's Comments', Bill Worthington, 14 Jul 2017
RC2: 'review in Supplement as pdf file', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Jun 2017
- AC2: 'Response to Referee #2 (Anonymous)', Bill Worthington, 14 Jul 2017

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.