New Geoid of Greenland: A Case Study of Terrain and Ice Effects, GOCE and Use of Local Sea Level Data
Making an accurate geoid model of Greenland has always been a challenge due to the ice sheet and glaciers, and the rough topography and deep fjords in the ice free parts. Terrestrial gravity coverage has for the same reasons been relatively sparse, with an older airborne survey of the interior being the only gravity field data over the interior, and terrain and ice thickness models being insufficient both in terms of resolution and accuracy. This data situation has in the later years changed substantially, first of all due to GOCE, but also new airborne gravity and ice thickness data from the NASA IceBridge mission, and new terrain models from ASTER, SPOT-5 and digital photogrammetry.
In the paper we use all available data to make a new geoid of Greenland and surrounding ocean regions, using remove-restore techniques for ice and topography, spherical FFT techniques and downward continuation by least squares collocation. The impact of GOCE and the new terrestrial data yielded a much improved geoid, as evidenced by comparison to GPS measurements along fjords, which serves as a proxy for GPS leveling data, and comparisons to new GPS leveling data in Iceland. The comparisons show significant improvements over EGM08 and older geoid models, and also highlight the problems of global sea level models, especially in sea ice covered regions, and the definition of a new consistent vertical datum of Greenland.
KeywordsGeoid Gravity Greenland
Gravity data for the new Greenland geoid have been contributed by NASA IceBridge, Iceland Geodetic Survey, Geodetic Survey Division, Canada, and numerous government and commercial surveys in Greenland. GPS and leveling data in Iceland were provided by Gudmundur Valsson, Iceland Geodetic Survey.
- Brozena J (1991) The greenland aerogeophysics experiment: airborne gravity, topographic and magnetic mapping of an entire continent. In: Colombo (ed) From Mars to Greenland: charting gravity with space and airborne instruments. IAG Symposium Series 110. Springer Verlag, pp 203–214Google Scholar
- Cochran JR, Bell RE (2010) IceBridge Sander AIRGrav L1B geolocated free air gravity anomalies 2010-12. Boulder. National Snow and Ice Data Center, Colorado USAGoogle Scholar
- Forsberg R (1984) A study of terrain reductions, density anomalies and geophysical inversion methods in gravity field modelling. Reports of the Department of Geodetic Science and Surveying, No. 355, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
- Forsberg R, Sideris MG (1993) Geoid computations by the multi-band spherical FFT approach. Manuscript Geod 18:82–90Google Scholar
- Forsberg R, Olesen A, Vest A, Solheim D, Hipkin R, Omang O, Knudsen P (2004) Gravity field improvements in the north atlantic region. Proceedings GOCE Workshop, ESA-ESRINGoogle Scholar
- Heiskanen W, Moritz H (1967) Physical geodesy. W.H. Freeman and Co, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- Pail R, Bruinsma SL, Migliaccio F, Förste C, Goiginger H, Schuh WD, Höck E, Reguzzoni M, Brockmann JM, Abrikosov O, Veicherts M, Fecher T, Mayrhofer R, Krasbutter I, Sanso F, Tscherning CC (2011) First GOCE gravity field models derived by three different approaches. J Geod 85(11):819–843. doi: 10.1007/s00190-011-0467-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar