1 / 22

D. Rieser *, R. Pail, A. I. Sharov

Refining regional gravity field solutions with GOCE gravity gradients for cryospheric investigations. D. Rieser *, R. Pail, A. I. Sharov. Contents. Introduction Gradients for regional Geoid computations Coping with noise Solution strategies Geoid computation Problems Summary.

naava
Download Presentation

D. Rieser *, R. Pail, A. I. Sharov

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Refining regional gravity field solutions with GOCE gravity gradients for cryospheric investigations D. Rieser *, R. Pail, A. I. Sharov

  2. Contents • Introduction • Gradients for regional Geoid computations • Coping with noise • Solution strategies • Geoid computation • Problems • Summary

  3. Introduction • Background and motivation • Project ICEAGE • Arctic snow- and ice cover variations and relations to gravity • Sharov et al.: Variations of the Arctic ice-snow cover in nonhomogenous geopotential (oral, 30.06.,11:40) • Gisinger et al.: Ice mass change versus gravity-local models and GOCE's contribution (poster, 30.06, 16:00)

  4. Introduction • Contributions of GOCE to regional gravity field • Gradients as in-situ observations • Beneficial dense data distribution • Combination with other data types • terrestrial (gravity anomalies, e.g. ArcGP) • gravity models (EGM2008)

  5. Gradients for regional Geoid computations • Least Squares Collocation • Prediction • Gravity quantity as functional of disturbing potential T • Covariance function

  6. Gradients for regional Geoid computations • Approach following Tscherning (1993) • Covariances as combination of base functions • All covariances up to 2nd order derivatives of the disturbing potential (i.e. gradients) • Advantage: • Covariances can be rotated in arbitrary reference frame

  7. Gradients for regional Geoid computations • Characteristics of GOCE gradients observations • Observations in Gradiometer Reference Frame (GRF) • Assumption of uncorrelated gradients in GRF • Gradients suffering from coloured noise • Vxy and Vyz tensor components badly deteriorated Error PSD from ESA E2E-simulation (before GOCE launch)

  8. Coping with noise • Filtering of coloured noise by applying Wiener filter method (Migliaccio et al., 2004) • Signal t consisting of signal s + noise n • Wiener filter in spectral domain • Filtered signal in time domain

  9. Coping with noise • Covariance function of the filter error • Requirement: stationary signal (valid only in Local Orbit Reference Frame LORF) • Problem: rotation of gradients from GRF to LORF unfavorable (Vxy, Vyz)

  10. Solution strategies • Strategy 1 • Gradients in GRF • Filtering in GRF • not allowed in strict sense • Cll rotated to GRF • Cnn set up in GRF • Cslfor signals in Local North Oriented Frame (LNOF) and gradientsin GRF

  11. Solution strategies • Strategy 2 • Rotate gradient tensor toLORF • a-priori replacement ofless accurate tensor components with EGM • Filtering in LORF • Set up of Cnn in GRF and rotation to LORF • a-priori covariance propagation for replacedcomponents from EGM

  12. Solution strategies • Noise covariance propagation GRF  LORF • GRF: uncorrelated gradient tensor components • LORF: correlation through rotation

  13. Geoid computation • GOCE data: • 01. November 2009 – 30. November 2009 • Reduced up to D/O 49by EGM2008 • 5 sec sampling • Region: 53° – 79° E 73° – 78° N

  14. Geoid computation • Filtering of gradients • Noise PSD Quicklook

  15. EGM2008 reference LSC with Vzz Difference to EGM2008 reference Standard deviation Geoid computation • Noise-free scenario: • Vzz gradients simulated from EGM2008 on real orbit (D/O 50to250)

  16. Geoid computation • Geoid solution from real Vxx, Vyy and Vzz components Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Difference to reference Standard deviation

  17. Geoid computation • ‚Terrestrial‘ data • Gravity anomalies simulated from EGM2008 (~ ArcGP) • D/O 50 to 250 • s = 3 mgal • 0.25° X 0.25° grid Difference to reference Standard deviation

  18. Geoid computation • Combination of GOCE and terrestrial data • Vxx, Vyy and Vzz gradients (filtered in GRF) • Gravity anomalies (D/O 50 to 250, s = 3 mGal) Difference to reference Standard deviation

  19. Geoid computation Difference to reference Standard deviation gradients only Dg only combined

  20. Problems • Downward continuation of gradients unstable • Ground data necessary • Global covariance model • Valid for Dg (ground) and gradients (GOCE altitude) • Assumptions • Strategy 1: • Wiener filtering in non-stationary GRF • Strategy 2: • Noise-covariance information from a-priori Wiener filtering in GRF • Replacement of real gradients with EGM information Empirical and EGM2008 model covariance function for VZZ (D/O 50 to 250) at h=245km Empirical and EGM2008 model covariance function for Dg (D/O 50 to 250)

  21. Summary • GOCE gravity gradients can be used as in-situ observations • Reduction of noise by applying Wiener filtering • Different solution strategies lead to similar results • Assumptions inevitable • Combination of GOCE gradients with terrestrial data improves the solution in medium wavelengths

  22. Thank you for your attention D. Rieser *, R. Pail, A. I. Sharov

More Related