If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | |||
![]() Geophysical Journal InternationalVolume 167 Issue 3, Pages 1211 - 1214 Published Online: 31 Oct 2006 Journal compilation © 2010 RAS Published on behalf of the Royal Astronomical Society
Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 125K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking Reply to comment by R. Montelli, G. Nolet and F. A. Dahlen on 'Banana–doughnut kernels and mantle tomography' Copyright 2006 The Authors Journal compilation © 2006 RAS KEYWORDS finite-frequency sensitivity • linearized traveltime tomography • plumes ABSTRACTMontelli et al. comment on a paper that we wrote in response to an earlier 'comment' and in which we argue that the Princeton models with or without banana–doughnut theory are effectively the same and that, thus, the beneficial effects of the use of banana–doughnut kernels (BDKs) on global tomography have been overstated. The models are highly correlated. There are (of course) differences, and some anomalies in the banana–doughnut models have higher amplitudes (perhaps by as much as 50 per cent or more) than in the ray theoretical models. However, this occurs mainly for small, weak anomalies, whose resolution by long period data has not been demonstrated. Because of differences in data and inversion strategy, and in absence of a 'ground truth', comparisons of MIT and PRI models do not provide insight into the efficacy and validity of BDKs or the accuracy of the models. With regard to plumes: if they indeed exist and have the appearance as suggested by Montelli et al. then our models are—in that respect—inaccurate. However, this is unrelated to the main point of our paper. Accepted 2006 September 4. Received 2006 August 31 |