Linking thermal and seismic mantle structure in the light of uncertain mineralogy and limited tomographic resolution

Abstract

<p>Mantle convection is primarily driven by gravitational forces acting on thermally buoyant structures in Earth's interior. The associated vertical stresses generate phases of uplift and subsidence of the surface, leaving observable traces in the geologic record. Utilizing new data assimilation techniques, geodynamic inverse models of mantle flow can provide theoretical estimates of these surface processes, which can be tested against geologic observations. These so-called mantle flow retrodictions are emerging as powerful tools that have the potential to allow for tighter constraints on the inherent physical parameters.</p> <p>To contain meaningful information, the inverse models require an estimate of the present-day buoyancy distribution within the mantle, which can be derived from seismic observations. By using thermodynamically self-consistent models of mantle mineralogy, it is possible to convert the seismic structure of global tomographic models to temperature. However, both seismic and mineralogical models are significantly affected by different sources of uncertainty and often require subjective modelling choices, which can lead to different estimated properties. In addition, due to the complexity of the mineralogical models, the relation between temperature and seismic velocities is highly nonlinear and not strictly bijective: In the presence of phase transitions, different temperatures can result in the same seismic velocity, further complicating the conversion between the two parameters.</p> <p> </p> <p>Using a synthetic closed-loop experiment, we investigate the theoretical ability to estimate the present-day thermal state of Earth's mantle based on tomographic models. The temperature distribution from a 3-D mantle circulation model with earth-like convective vigour serves as a representation of the "true" temperature field, which we aim to recover after a set of processing steps. These steps include the “forward and inverse” mineralogical mapping between temperatures and seismic velocities, using a thermodynamic model for pyrolite composition, as well as applying a tomographic filter to mimic the limited resolution and uneven data coverage of the underlying tomographic model. Owing to imperfect knowledge of the parameters governing mineral anelasticity, we test the effects of changes to the anelastic correction applied in forward and inverse mineralogical mapping. The mismatch between the recovered and the initial temperature field carries a strong imprint of the tomographic filter. Additionally, we observe systematic errors in the recovered temperature field in the vicinity of phase transitions. Our results highlight that, given the current limits of tomographic models and the incomplete knowledge of mantle mineralogy, amplitudes and spatial scales of a temperature field obtained through global seismic models will deviate significantly from the true state. Strategies to recover the present-day buoyancy field must be carefully selected in order to minimize additional uncertainties.</p>