4.3 Article

Multifractal Earth topography

期刊

NONLINEAR PROCESSES IN GEOPHYSICS
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 541-570

出版社

EUROPEAN GEOSCIENCES UNION
DOI: 10.5194/npg-13-541-2006

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper shows how modern ideas of scaling can be used to model topography with various morphologies and also to accurately characterize topography over wide ranges of scales. Our argument is divided in two parts. We first survey the main topographic models and show that they are based on convolutions of basic structures (singularities) with noises. Focusing on models with large numbers of degrees of freedom (fractional Brownian motion (fBm), fractional Levy motion (fLm), multifractal fractionally integrated flux (FIF) model), we show that they are distinguished by the type of underlying noise. In addition, realistic models require anisotropic singularities; we show how to generalize the basic isotropic (self-similar) models to anisotropic ones. Using numerical simulations, we display the subtle interplay between statistics, singularity structure and resulting topographic morphology. We show how the existence of anisotropic singularities with highly variable statistics can lead to unwarranted conclusions about scale breaking. We then analyze topographic transects from four Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) which collectively span scales from planetary down to 50 cm (4 orders of magnitude larger than in previous studies) and contain more than 2 x 108 pixels (a hundred times more data than in previous studies). We use power spectra and multiscaling analysis tools to study the global properties of topography. We show that the isotropic scaling for moments of order <= 2 holds to within +/-45% down to scales; 40 in. We also show that the multifractal FIF is easily compatible with the data, while the monofractal fBm and fLm are not. We estimate the universal parameters (alpha, C-1) characterizing the underlying FIF noise to be (1.79, 0.12), where alpha is the degree of multifractality (0

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据