Advertisement

Atmospheric De-Aliasing Revisited

  • T. Peters
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 132)

Abstract

In temporal gravity variations, the variations in the atmospheric mass distribution are one of the most prominent signals next to tides. Since they superimpose the desired signals in the case of the current satellite gravity missions GRACE and GOCE, they are considered noise and removed using models. Therefore, errors in these models directly propagate to the results of the missions and may lead to misinterpretations.

Considering this background we revisit the forward modelling of atmospheric mass variations in order to derive an optimal strategy for the de-aliasing for the GOCE mission. Starting from basic principles, the parametrization and especially the radial discretization are investigated using operational data from ECMWF. The impact of model updates is discussed in a case study. Finally, a comparison with data from NCEP is used to assess the uncertainty of the mass variations derived from atmospheric models.

Keywords

Atmospheric gravity forward modelling GOCE de-aliasing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boy, J.-P., and B.F. Chao (2005), Precise evaluation of atmospheric loading effects on Earth’s time-variable gravity field, J. Geophys. Res., 110, B08412, doi:10.1029/2002JB002333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ecker E., and E. Mittermayer (1969), Gravity corrections for the influence of the atmosphere, Boll di Geofisica teor ed appl, XI(41–42), pp. 70–80.Google Scholar
  3. ECMWF Research Department (2003), IFS Documentation – Part III: Dynamics and Numerical Procedures (cy28r1), www.ecmwf.int.Google Scholar
  4. Flechtner, F. (2005), AOD1B product description document,in: GRACE Project Documentation, JPL 327–750, rev 2.1, JPL, Pasadena, CA.Google Scholar
  5. Gill, A.E. (1982), Atmosphere – Ocean Dynamics, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  6. Gruber, T., and T. Peters (2003), Time variable gravity field: Using future Earth observation missions for high frequency de-aliasing, in: Proc IERS Workshop on Combination Research and Global Geophysical Fluids. Richter B, Schwegmann W, Dick WR (eds.) IERS Technical Note No. 30, BKG, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 157–160.Google Scholar
  7. Moritz, H. (1980), Advanced Physical Geodesy, Wichmann, Karlsruhe, pp. 422–425.Google Scholar
  8. Swenson, S., and J. Wahr (2002), Estimated effects of the vertical structure of atmospheric mass on the time-variable geoid, J. Geophys. Res., 107(B9), 2194, doi:10.1029/2000JB000024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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, pp. 503–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Trenberth, K.E., and J.G. Olson (1988), An evaluation and intercomparison of global analyses from the National Meteorological Center and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc., 69, pp. 1047–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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, pp. 16,415–16,434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Velicogna, I., and J. Wahr (2006), Measurements of time-variable gravity show mass loss in Antarctica, Science, 311(5768), pp. 1754–1756, doi: 10.1126/science. 1123785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Peters
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Astronomical and Physical GeodesyTechnische Universität MünchenD-80290 MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations