Testing of global pressure/temperature (GPT) model and global mapping function (GMF) in GPS analyses

Several sources of a priori meteorological data have been compared for their effects on geodetic results from GPS precise point positioning (PPP). The new global pressure and temperature model (GPT), available at the IERS Conventions web site, provides pressure values that have been used to compute a priori hydrostatic (dry) zenith path delay zh estimates. Both the GPT-derived and a simple height-dependent a priori constant zh performed well for low- and mid-latitude stations. However, due to the actual variations not accounted for by the seasonal GPT model pressure values or the a priori constant zh, GPS height solution errors can sometimes exceed 10 mm, particularly in Polar Regions or with elevation cutoff angles less than 10 degrees. Such height errors are nearly perfectly correlated with local pressure variations so that for most stations they partly (and for solutions with 5-degree elevation angle cutoff almost fully) compensate for the atmospheric loading displacements. Consequently, unlike PPP solutions utilizing a numerical weather model (NWM) or locally measured pressure data for a priori zh, the GPT-based PPP height repeatabilities are better for most stations before rather than after correcting for atmospheric loading. At 5 of the 11 studied stations, for which measured local meteorological data were available, the PPP height errors caused by a priori zh interpolated from gridded Vienna Mapping Function-1 (VMF1) data (from a NWM) were less than 0.5 mm. Height errors due to the global mapping function (GMF) are even larger than those caused by the GPT a priori pressure errors. The GMF height errors are mainly due to the hydrostatic mapping and for the solutions with 10-degree elevation cutoff they are about 50% larger than the GPT a priori errors.

[1]  Harald Schuh,et al.  Vienna mapping functions in VLBI analyses , 2004 .

[2]  J. Kouba Implementation and testing of the gridded Vienna Mapping Function 1 (VMF1) , 2008 .

[3]  Gerd Gendt,et al.  The International GPS Service: Celebrating the 10th anniversary and looking to the next decade , 2005 .

[4]  Forecasting Data of the Troposphere Used for IVS Intensive Sessions , 2007 .

[5]  H. S. Hopfield Two- quartic tropospheric refractivity profile for correcting satellite data , 1969 .

[6]  Climatic signals observed by VLBI , 2006 .

[7]  Thomas A. Herring,et al.  Impact of a priori zenith hydrostatic delay errors on GPS estimates of station heights and zenith total delays , 2006 .

[8]  J. Kouba,et al.  GPS Precise Point Positioning Using IGS Orbit Products , 2001 .

[9]  I. Shapiro,et al.  Geodesy by radio interferometry: Effects of atmospheric modeling errors on estimates of baseline length , 1985 .

[10]  G. Blewitt,et al.  A New Global Mode of Earth Deformation: Seasonal Cycle Detected , 2001, Science.

[11]  H. Schuh,et al.  Short Note: A global model of pressure and temperature for geodetic applications , 2007 .

[12]  J. W. Marini,et al.  Correction of Satellite Tracking Data for an Arbitrary Tropospheric Profile , 1972 .

[13]  H. Schuh,et al.  Global Mapping Function (GMF): A new empirical mapping function based on numerical weather model data , 2006 .

[14]  H. Schuh,et al.  Troposphere mapping functions for GPS and very long baseline interferometry from European Centre for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts operational analysis data , 2006 .

[15]  Neutral Atmosphere Delays: Empirical Models Versus Discrete Time Series from Numerical Weather Models , 2009 .