Accuracy assessment of the monthly GRACE geoids based upon a simulation

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the effect of geophysical background model errors that affects temporal gravity solutions provided by the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE). Initial performance estimates by Dickey et al. (1997) suggested a formal geoid RMS error better than 0.1 mm up to spherical harmonic degree 5. Now that the GRACE gravity models and data are available, it is evident that these original expectations were too optimistic. Our hypothesis is that this is partially explained by errors in geophysical background models that need to be applied in the GRACE data reduction, and that this effect was not considered by Dickey et al. (1997). We discuss the results of a closed-loop simulation, where satellite trajectory prediction software is used for the generation of GRACE range-rate data and GRACE orbit solutions with the help of the Global Positioning System (GPS). During the recovery step in our closed-loop simulation, we show that simulated nuisance signals (based on tide and air pressure model differences) map to a 0.7 mm geoid effect for periods longer than 3 months and to less than 0.4 mm for periods shorter than 3 months. The long-period geoid hydrology signal is at a level of 4.5 mm, while the short-period hydrology is at 0.25 mm. The long-period ocean bottom pressure (OBP) signal maps at 0.8 mm and for short periods it is 0.4 mm. We conclude that short-period effects are difficult to observe by GRACE and that long-period effects, like hydrology, are easier to recover than OBP variations.

[1]  R. Steven Nerem,et al.  Preliminary observations of global ocean mass variations with GRACE , 2004 .

[2]  M. Watkins,et al.  GRACE Measurements of Mass Variability in the Earth System , 2004, Science.

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

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

[5]  E. Schrama Error Characteristics Estimated from Champ, GRACE and GOCE Derived Geoids and from Satellite Altimetry Derived Mean Dynamic Topography , 2003 .

[6]  Oliver Montenbruck,et al.  Satellite Orbits: Models, Methods and Applications , 2000 .

[7]  C. Reigber,et al.  First champ mission results for gravity, magnetic and atmospheric studies , 2003 .

[8]  William H. Press,et al.  Numerical recipes : the art of scientific computing : FORTRAN version , 1989 .

[9]  Markus Rothacher,et al.  Kinematic positioning of LEO and GPS satellites and IGS stations on the ground , 2005 .

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

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

[12]  Walter H. F. Smith,et al.  A global, self‐consistent, hierarchical, high‐resolution shoreline database , 1996 .

[13]  C. Shum,et al.  Time‐variable aliasing effects of ocean tides, atmosphere, and continental water mass on monthly mean GRACE gravity field , 2004 .

[14]  J. Wahr,et al.  Can surface pressure be used to remove atmospheric , 2001 .

[15]  G. Seeber Satellite Geodesy: Foundations, Methods, and Applications , 1993 .

[16]  Nico Sneeuw,et al.  CHAMP Gravity Field Recovery with the Energy Balance Approach: First Results , 2003 .

[17]  Pieter Visser,et al.  Champ precise orbit determination using GPS data , 2003 .

[18]  P. Woodworth,et al.  Departures from the local inverse barometer model observed in altimeter and tide gauge data and in a global barotropic numerical model , 2001 .

[19]  K. Caldeira,et al.  Quantifying the effects of CO2‐fertilized vegetation on future global climate and carbon dynamics , 2004 .

[20]  Oliver Montenbruck,et al.  Precise GRACE baseline determination using GPS , 2005 .

[21]  C. Jekeli The determination of gravitational potential differences from satellite-to-satellite tracking , 1999 .

[22]  E. Möbius,et al.  Charge states of energetic (≈0.5 MeV/n) ions in corotating interaction regions at 1 AU and implications on source populations , 2002 .

[23]  Tidal Models in a New Era of Satellite Gravimetry , 2003 .

[24]  Fernando Sansò,et al.  A Window on the Future of Geodesy , 2005 .

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

[26]  J. Lemoine,et al.  A high‐quality global gravity field model from CHAMP GPS tracking data and accelerometry (EIGEN‐1S) , 2002 .

[27]  Roland Klees,et al.  ‘DEOS_CHAMP-01C_70’: a model of the Earth’s gravity field computed from accelerations of the CHAMP satellite , 2006 .

[28]  C. Provost,et al.  FES99: A Global Tide Finite Element Solution Assimilating Tide Gauge and Altimetric Information , 2002 .

[29]  C. Reigber Earth Observation with CHAMP : Results from Three Years in Orbit , 2005 .

[30]  Srinivas Bettadpur,et al.  Impact of short period, non‐tidal, temporal mass variability on GRACE gravity estimates , 2004 .

[31]  C. Shum,et al.  GRACE observations of M2 and S2 ocean tides underneath the Filchner‐Ronne and Larsen ice shelves, Antarctica , 2005 .

[32]  M. Rothacher,et al.  Kinematic Precise Orbit Determination for Gravity Field Determination , 2005 .

[33]  Huug van den Dool,et al.  Climate Prediction Center global monthly soil moisture data set at 0.5 resolution for 1948 to present , 2004 .

[34]  Christopher Jekeli,et al.  Gravity, Geoid and Space Missions , 2008 .

[35]  U. Meyer,et al.  An Earth gravity field model complete to degree and order 150 from GRACE: EIGEN-GRACE02S , 2005 .