Global Mass Flux Solutions from GRACE: A Comparison of Parameter Estimation Strategies - Mass Concentrations Versus Stokes Coefficients

[1] The differences between mass concentration (mascon) parameters and standard Stokes coefficient parameters in the recovery of gravity information from gravity recovery and climate experiment (GRACE) intersatellite K-band range rate data are investigated. First, mascons are decomposed into their Stokes coefficient representations to gauge the range of solutions available using each of the two types of parameters. Next, a direct comparison is made between two time series of unconstrained gravity solutions, one based on a set of global equal area mascon parameters (equivalent to 4° × 4° at the equator), and the other based on standard Stokes coefficients with each time series using the same fundamental processing of the GRACE tracking data. It is shown that in unconstrained solutions, the type of gravity parameter being estimated does not qualitatively affect the estimated gravity field. It is also shown that many of the differences in mass flux derivations from GRACE gravity solutions arise from the type of smoothing being used and that the type of smoothing that can be embedded in mascon solutions has distinct advantages over postsolution smoothing. Finally, a 1 year time series based on global 2° equal area mascons estimated every 10 days is presented.

[1]  R. Ray,et al.  Barometric Tides from ECMWF Operational Analyses , 2003 .

[2]  R. Rapp Procedures and results related to the direct determination of gravity anomalies from satellite and terrestrial gravity data , 1974 .

[3]  M. Watkins,et al.  The gravity recovery and climate experiment: Mission overview and early results , 2004 .

[4]  D. Rowlands,et al.  Recent glacier mass changes in the Gulf of Alaska region from GRACE mascon solutions , 2008, Journal of Glaciology.

[5]  F. Bryan,et al.  Time variability of the Earth's gravity field: Hydrological and oceanic effects and their possible detection using GRACE , 1998 .

[6]  Steven M. Klosko,et al.  Monthly spherical harmonic gravity field solutions determined from GRACE inter‐satellite range‐rate data alone , 2006 .

[7]  D. Chambers,et al.  GRACE observes small‐scale mass loss in Greenland , 2008 .

[8]  Matthew Rodell,et al.  Low degree spherical harmonic influences on Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) water storage estimates , 2005 .

[9]  W. Sjogren,et al.  A surface‐layer representation of the lunar gravitational field , 1971 .

[10]  D. Rowlands,et al.  Short-arc analysis of intersatellite tracking data in a gravity mapping mission , 2002 .

[11]  Jeffrey P. Walker,et al.  THE GLOBAL LAND DATA ASSIMILATION SYSTEM , 2004 .

[12]  M. Cheng,et al.  GGM02 – An improved Earth gravity field model from GRACE , 2005 .

[13]  S. Swenson,et al.  Post‐processing removal of correlated errors in GRACE data , 2006 .

[14]  J. Wahr,et al.  Acceleration of Greenland ice mass loss in spring 2004 , 2006, Nature.

[15]  S. Swenson,et al.  Methods for inferring regional surface‐mass anomalies from Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) measurements of time‐variable gravity , 2002 .

[16]  Richard D. Ray,et al.  A Global Ocean Tide Model From TOPEX/POSEIDON Altimetry: GOT99.2 , 1999 .

[17]  F. LeMoine,et al.  Resolving mass flux at high spatial and temporal resolution using GRACE intersatellite measurements , 2005 .

[18]  W. Sjogren,et al.  Mascons: Lunar Mass Concentrations , 1968, Science.

[19]  B. Chao,et al.  Snow load effect on the Earth's rotation and gravitational field, 1979–1985 , 1987 .

[20]  Florent Lyard,et al.  Modeling the barotropic response of the global ocean to atmospheric wind and pressure forcing ‐ comparisons with observations , 2003 .

[21]  R. Nerem,et al.  Recent Greenland Ice Mass Loss by Drainage System from Satellite Gravity Observations , 2006, Science.