Articles | Volume 13, issue 5
Solid Earth, 13, 849–873, 2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-849-2022
Solid Earth, 13, 849–873, 2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/se-13-849-2022
Method article
04 May 2022
Method article | 04 May 2022

Benchmark forward gravity schemes: the gravity field of a realistic lithosphere model WINTERC-G

Barend Cornelis Root et al.

Download

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on se-2021-145', Mikhail Kaban, 24 Jan 2022
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Bart Root, 01 Mar 2022
  • RC2: 'Comment on se-2021-145', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Jan 2022
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Bart Root, 01 Mar 2022
  • EC1: 'Comment on se-2021-145', Juliane Dannberg, 05 Feb 2022
    • AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Bart Root, 01 Mar 2022

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Bart Root on behalf of the Authors (02 Mar 2022)  Author's response    Author's tracked changes    Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (16 Mar 2022) by Juliane Dannberg
ED: Publish as is (16 Mar 2022) by Susanne Buiter(Executive Editor)
Download
Short summary
Several alternative gravity modelling techniques and associated numerical codes with their own advantages and limitations are available for the solid Earth community. With upcoming state-of-the-art lithosphere density models and accurate global gravity field data sets, it is vital to understand the differences of the various approaches. In this paper, we discuss the four widely used techniques: spherical harmonics, tesseroid integration, triangle integration, and hexahedral integration.