On Estimating the Dynamic Ocean Topography – A Profile Approach

  • W. BoschEmail author
  • R. Savcenko
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 135)


Since the essential improvements of GRACE gravity field models reliable signatures of the dynamic ocean topography (DOT) can be obtained by subtracting geoid heights from the sea surface. The differences are usually performed after an initial data gridding of sea surface heights implying already an undesirable loss of signal. On the other hand, even the latest gravity field solutions from GRACE exhibit a meridional striping in the geoid and require a smoothing. In order to preserve the high along-track resolution of altimetry the present paper investigates a profile approach which (i) performs a spectral smoothing of the GRACE gravity field (ii) merges mean-tide geoid profiles to the along-track sea level measurements of satellite altimetry and (iii) performs a common low pass filtering of along-track differences in order to make filtered sea level and geoid heights spectrally consistent. The approach is performed with the latest GRACE-only gravity field models and the sea surface height profiles of TOPEX and Jason-1 and produces time varying profiles of the DOT. Globally, the profiles exhibit the expected topographic features which are compared with independent estimates of the DOT.


Gravity Field Satellite Altimetry Geoid Height Gravity Field Model Geoid Undulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Förste, Ch., et al. (2008). The GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam/Groupe de Recherche de Gèodésie Spatiale satellite-only and combined gravity field models: EIGEN-GL04S1 and EIGEN-GL04C. J. Geodesy, 82(6), 331–346(16), DOI: 10.1007/s00190-007-0183-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Jekeli, C. (1981). Alternative methods to smooth the earth gravity field. Rep. 327. Dept Geod Sci & Surv, Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  3. Kusche, J. (2006). Approximate decorrelation and non-isotropic smoothing of time-variable GRACE-type gravity fields. DEOS Delft University of Technology, Delft.Google Scholar
  4. Lemoine, F.G., et al. (1998). The Developement of the Joint NASA GSFC and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA Geopotential Model EGM96. NASA/TP-1998-206861, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland.Google Scholar
  5. Niiler, P.P., N.A. Maximenko, and J.C. McWilliams (2003). Dynamically balanced absolute sea level of the global ocean derived from near-surface velocity observations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(22), 2164, doi:10.1029/2003GL018628, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Pavlis, N.K., S.A. Holmes, S.C. Kenyon, and J.K. Factor (2008). An earth gravitational model to degree 2160: EGM2008, presented at the 2008 General Assembly of the European Geosciences Union, Vienna, Austria, April 13–18.Google Scholar
  7. Rio, M.H. and F. Hernandez (2004). A mean dynamic topography computed over the world ocean from altimetry, in-situ measurements and a geoid model. J. Geophys. Res., 109(12).Google Scholar
  8. Tapley, B.D., S. Bettadpur, M.M. Watkins, and Ch. Reigber (2004). The gravity recovery and climate experiment: mission overview and early results. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L09607, doi:10.1029/2004GL 019920, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. Wünsch, J., P. Schwintzer, and S. Petrovic (2005). Comparison of two different ocean tide models especially with respect to the GRACE satellite mission, Scientific Technical Report STR05/08, Geoforschungszentrum Potsdam, Potsdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deutsches Geodätisches Forschungsinstitut (DGFI)MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations