Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) alias error from ocean tides

[1] Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) is able to observe interannual and longer-period mass redistribution driven by climate changes. However, alias errors due to inaccurate ocean tide models may contaminate these signals. To quantify this problem, we estimate alias contamination due to expected errors in eight tidal constituents (Q1, O1, P1, K1, N2, M2, S2, and K2) for the period August 2002 to February 2006. Differences between GOT00.2 and TPXO6.2 tide models are used as estimates of tide model errors. The alias estimate is based on an approximate method employing least squares fits of spherical harmonics to potential differences between the two GRACE satellites. Results from this method are similar to previous estimates, confirming this is a useful and efficient way to study the alias problem. New findings are (1) the period of the M2 tide alias is about 140 d, much longer than the predicted period (13.5 d) because of monthly sampling of the 13.5-d period; (2) there are two alias periods for K1 (one about 90 d and one longer than 7 years); and (3) the slow decay in the GRACE orbit causes tide component aliases to differ from pure frequencies as the orbit evolves. We also find that aliases can contaminate in both space and time and thus may affect estimates of mass changes over land. Finally, we compare the simulated S2 alias with the estimated S2 alias in GRACE data. They are similar, but our approximate method appears to overestimate alias error over high-latitude oceans and along certain coastlines while underestimating error over low-latitude oceans.

[1]  Christopher Jekeli,et al.  Precise estimation of in situ geopotential differences from GRACE low‐low satellite‐to‐satellite tracking and accelerometer data , 2006 .

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

[3]  W. M. Kaula Theory of satellite geodesy , 1966 .

[4]  S. Swenson,et al.  Estimated accuracies of regional water storage variations inferred from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) , 2003 .

[5]  A. Bennett,et al.  TOPEX/POSEIDON tides estimated using a global inverse model , 1994 .

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

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

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

[9]  Pieter Visser,et al.  Accuracy assessment of the monthly GRACE geoids based upon a simulation , 2006 .

[10]  Scott B. Luthcke,et al.  FAST TRACK PAPER: Tide model errors and GRACE gravimetry: towards a more realistic assessment , 2006 .

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

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

[13]  S. Swenson,et al.  Accuracy of GRACE mass estimates , 2006 .

[14]  Duane E. Waliser,et al.  GRACE's spatial aliasing error , 2006 .

[15]  Victor Zlotnicki,et al.  Time‐variable gravity from GRACE: First results , 2004 .

[16]  P. Knudsen Ocean Tides in GRACE Monthly Averaged Gravity Fields , 2003 .

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

[18]  S. Desai,et al.  Application of the convolution formalism to the ocean tide potential: Results from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) , 2006 .

[19]  J. Wahr,et al.  Measurements of Time-Variable Gravity Show Mass Loss in Antarctica , 2006, Science.