Can we estimate the period and quality-factor of the Chandler wobble using only the observed polar motion data?
Abstract The clear ~ 6-year beat in the polar motion data has allowed us to consider the Chandler period (P) as ~ 1.2 years, albeit approximately, from solely the observed polar motion data. This has been made possible not only because the period of the beat can be explained by a combination of the...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SpringerOpen
2025-07-01
|
| Series: | Earth, Planets and Space |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-025-02240-7 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Abstract The clear ~ 6-year beat in the polar motion data has allowed us to consider the Chandler period (P) as ~ 1.2 years, albeit approximately, from solely the observed polar motion data. This has been made possible not only because the period of the beat can be explained by a combination of the periods of both annual wobble (AW) and Chandler wobble (CW), but also because the spectrum of excitation has been assumed to be flat around the resonant frequency. In contrast, substantial uncertainties persist in the assessment of its quality factor (Q), given the continuous observation of CW but the uncertainties surrounding its excitation sources. Nonetheless, two recent studies asserted that they could estimate both the P and Q or constrain the upper bound of Q only from the observed polar motion data. Here we point out that both studies have problems in their approaches and argue that we cannot optimize either P or Q without access to geophysical excitation data or their models. Graphical Abstract |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1880-5981 |