Evaluation of Altimetry Data in the Baltic Sea Region for Computation of New Quasigeoid Models over Poland
The paper presents the comparison and validation of currently available gravity anomalies from the satellite altimetry models with the shipborne and airborne gravity anomalies along the Polish coast and in the Baltic Sea. The mean value of differences between the investigated DTU10 and GMG V24.1 altimetry-derived models is equal to 0.02 mGal. However, significant differences can be seen in the coastal areas. Shipborne and airborne marine gravity datasets, collected over the past 65 years by various institutions, were also compared.
Furthermore, the new gravimetric quasigeoid models for the territory of Poland were computed using the new gravity data from the satellite altimetry, the EIGEN-6C4 geopotential model, and the SRTM elevation model. The accuracy of these models, estimated using the ASG-EUPOS permanent GNSS stations, reaches 1.4 cm.
KeywordsBaltic Sea gravity data Regional quasigeoid model Satellite altimetry models
Land and marine gravity data were kindly released from Institute of Geodesy and Cartography in Warsaw, Finnish Geodetic Institute, Polish Space Research Centre PAS and Kort&Matrikelstyrelsen. All figures were prepared using MAP-LAB (Piretzidis and Sideris 2016).
- Amos MJ, Featherstone WE, Brett J (2005) Crossover adjustment of New Zealand marine gravity data, and comparisons with satellite altimetry and global geopotential models. In: Jekeli C, Bastos L, Fernandes J (eds) Gravity, geoid and space missions. Springer, Berlin, pp 266–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-26932-0_46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Andersen OB (2010) The DTU10 gravity field and mean sea surface. In: Second international symposium of the gravity field of the Earth (IGFS2), Fairbanks, AlaskaGoogle Scholar
- Bosy J, Oruba A, Graszka W, Leonczyk M, Ryczywolski M (2008) ASG-EUPOS densification of EUREF Permanent Network on the territory of Poland. Reports on Geodesy No 2(85): 105–112Google Scholar
- Forsberg R, Tscherning CC (2008) An overview manual for the GRAVSOFT geodetic gravity field modelling programs, 2nd edn. Technical University of CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
- Fotopoulos G (2003) An analysis on the optimal combination of geoid, orthometric and ellipsoidal height data. PhD Thesis, University of CalgaryGoogle Scholar
- Förste Ch, Bruinsma SL, Abrikosov O, Lemoine JM, Schaller T, Götze HJ, Ebbing J, Marty JC, Flechtner F, Balmino G, Biancale R (2014) The latest combined global gravity field model including GOCE data up to degree and order 2190 of GFZ Potsdam and GRGS ToulouseGoogle Scholar
- Grushinsky NP (1976) Theory of the earth figure. Nauka, MoscowGoogle Scholar
- Krynski J (2007) Precise quasigeoid modelling in Poland—results and accuracy estimation (in Polish). Monographic series of the Institute of Geodesy and Cartography, No 13, Warsaw, Poland, p 266Google Scholar
- Lyszkowicz A (1994) Gravity anomalies for the Southern Part of Baltic Sea and their statistics. In: Proceedings of the Joint Symposium of the International Gravity Commission and the International Geoid Commission, Graz, Austria, pp 102–107Google Scholar
- Lyszkowicz A (2010) Quasigeoid for the area of Poland computed by least squares collocation. Technical Sciences, No 13, Y 2010Google Scholar
- Lyszkowicz A, Denker H (1994) Computation of gravimetric geoid for Poland using FFT. Artificial satellites, planetary geodesy No 21, str.1-11Google Scholar
- Pavlis NK, Holmes SA, Kenyon SC, Factor JK (2012) The development and evaluation of the earth gravitational model 2008 (EGM2008). J Geophys Res 117(B4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB008916
- Piretzidis D, Sideris MG (2016) MAP-LAB: A MATLAB graphical user interface for generating maps for geodetic and oceanographic applications. In: Poster presented at the international symposium on gravity, geoid and height systems 2016, 19–23 September 2016, Thessaloniki, Greece, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16099.76323
- Szelachowska M, Krynski J (2014) GDQM-PL13 - the new gravimetric quasigeoid model for Poland. Geoinf Issues 1(6):5–19Google Scholar
- Vaniček P, Christou NT (eds) (1994) Geoid and its geophysical interpretations. CRS Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar