Advertisement

Space-borne gravimetry: determination of the time variable gravity field

  • P.N.A.M. Visser
  • E.J.O. Schrama
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 129)

Abstract

The gravity field of the Earth can be divided into a dominant quasi-static part and several relatively small but significant temporal constituents. Important examples of temporal sources are ocean tides, atmospheric pressure variations, and geophysical signals like those of continental hydrology and ocean bottom pressure variations predicted by the ECCO ocean model. Space-borne gravimetry, such as by the GRACE system, aims at observing including those induced by continental hydrology. A case study, based on a simulated gravity field retrieval for a 1-year GRACE-type mission, has been conducted to analyze the separability of continental hydrology from other temporal gravity sources.

It has been investigated how typical differences between recent ocean tide models and between global atmospheric pressure variation maps affect the observations (low-low satellite-to-satellite range-rate tracking (SST) and orbital positions from GPS high-low SST) and retrieved gravity field spherical harmonic expansions. In addition, the aliasing of signals predicted by the ECCO model and the effect of low-low SST observation noise and uncertainties in the recovered orbital positions has been analyzed.

It is concluded that large scale features of continental hydrology can be observed by a GRACE-type mission, provided that the low-low SST observations have a precision at the level of 1 µm/s at 1 Hz, and when great care is taken with the gravity field recovery approach.

Key words

low-low satellite-to-satellite tracking temporal gravity hydrology atmosphere tides ocean models 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cazenave, A., and R.S. Nerem (2002), Redistributing Earth’s Mass, Science, 297, 783–784, August 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cox, C.M., and B.F. Chao (2002), Detection of Large-Scale Mass Redistribution in the Terrestrial System Since 1998, Science, 297, 831–833, August 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ECCO homepage, http://www.ecco-group.org/, last accessed: July 2004Google Scholar
  4. ESA (1999), Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Mission, Reports for Mission Selection, The Four Candidate Earth Explorer Core Missions, SP-1233(1), European Space Agency, July 1999.Google Scholar
  5. Fan, Y., and H. van den Dool (2004), Climate Prediction Center global monthly soil moisture data set at 0.5° resolution for 1948 to present, J. Geophys. Res., 109(D10), 8 pp., May 2004.Google Scholar
  6. GRACE CSR homepage, http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity, last accessed: July 2004Google Scholar
  7. Han, S.-C., C. Jekeli, and C.K. Shum (2004), Time-variable aliasing effects of ocean tides, atmosphere, and continental water mass on monthly mean GRACE gravity field, J. Geophys. Res., 109(B4), doi: 10.1029/2003JB002501.Google Scholar
  8. Lefèvre, F., F.H. Lyard, C. LeProvost, and E.J.O. Schrama (2002), FES99: A Global Tide Finite Element Solution Assimilating Tide Gauge and Altimetric Information, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 19(9), 1345–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ray, R D (1999), A global ocean tide model from Topex/Poseidon altimetry: GOT99.2, NASA Tech. Memo. 209478, 58 pp., Goddard Space Flight Center.Google Scholar
  10. Reigber, Ch., P. Schwintzer, and H. Lühr (1999), The CHAMP geopotential mission, in Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata, Vol. 40, No. 3–4, Sep.–Dec. 1999, Proceedings of the 2nd Joint Meeting of the International Gravity and the International Geoid Commission, Trieste 7–12 Sept. 1998, ISSN 0006-6729, edited by I. Marson and H. Sünkel, pp. 285–289.Google Scholar
  11. hspace*-3mm Rowlands, D., J.A. Marshall, J. McCarthy, D. Moore, D. Pavlis, S. Rowton, S. Luthcke, and L. Tsaoussi (1995), GEODYN II system description, Vols. 1–5, Contractor report, Hughes STX Corp., Greenbelt, MD.Google Scholar
  12. Schrama, E.J.O. (2003), Error characteristics estimated from CHAMP, GRACE and GOCE derived geoids and from satellite altimetry derived mean dynamic topography, Space Science Reviews, 108, 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tapley, B.D., and C. Reigber (1999), GRACE: a satellite-to-satellite tracking geopotential mapping mission, in Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata, Vol. 40, No. 3–4, Sep.–Dec. 1999, Proceedings of the 2nd Joint Meeting of the International Gravity and the International Geoid Commission, Trieste 7–12 Sept. 1998, ISSN 0006-6729, edited by I. Marson and H. Sünkel, p. 291.Google Scholar
  14. Tapley, B.D., S. Bettadpur, J.C. Ries, P.F. Thompson, and M.M. Watkins (2004), GRACE Measurements of Mass Variability in the Earth System, Science, 305, 1503–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Velicogna, I., J. Wahr, and H. Van den Dool (2001), Can surface pressure be used to remove atmospheric contributions from GRACE data with sufficient accuracy to recover hydrological signals?, J. Geophys. Res., 106(B8), doi: 10.1029/2001JB900228.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • P.N.A.M. Visser
    • 1
  • E.J.O. Schrama
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Earth Observation and Space Systems (DEOS), Faculty of Aerospace EngineeringDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations