1 / 14

Evaluation of the NAVD 88 Using Aerogravity and Lidar Data in the Gulf of Mexico

Evaluation of the NAVD 88 Using Aerogravity and Lidar Data in the Gulf of Mexico. Day: Tuesday Time: 1620 Org.: IAG Session: G2 Paper #: 200. Authors Daniel R. Roman (NGS), John Brozena (NRL), Scott Luthcke (GSFC), Yan Ming Wang (NGS), Vicki Childers (NRL), J. Bryan Blair (GSFC)

sora
Download Presentation

Evaluation of the NAVD 88 Using Aerogravity and Lidar Data in the Gulf of Mexico

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. Evaluation of the NAVD 88 Using Aerogravity and Lidar Data in the Gulf of Mexico Day: Tuesday Time: 1620 Org.: IAG Session: G2 Paper #: 200 Authors Daniel R. Roman (NGS), John Brozena (NRL), Scott Luthcke (GSFC), Yan Ming Wang (NGS), Vicki Childers (NRL), J. Bryan Blair (GSFC) Support Staff NRL: Sandy Martinka, James Jarvis, Robert Liang, GSFC: David Rabine, Hannes Greim, Michelle Horton

  2. DISCUSSION OUTLINE • Overview • Collection Mission • The NAVD 88 Datum • Future Plans • Conclusions

  3. OVERVIEW • Existing vertical datum for U.S., NAVD 88, has meter-level bias and trend problems • Altimeter profiles across Great Lakes • Comparisons to GRACE-based EGM’s • Use GRACE-based EGM’s enhanced by local gravity for datum definition • Need to ensure the gravity data are consistent and seamless • From offshore to onshore (shipborne vs. terrestrial groups) • Fill in gapped regions and edge regions • Gravimetric Geoid + MDT = Observed Mean Sea Surface • Need open-ocean lidar observations for MDT • Can validate this approach at coastal stations (TBM’s) • Benefits: more accurate coastal heights, improved emergency and coastal management, validation of satellite missions (on a larger scale)

  4. tidal benchmarks with a NAVD88 tie tidal benchmarks without a NAVD88 tie

  5. GRAVITY-LIDAR COLLECTION MISSION

  6. Profile comparisons of the track 3 of flight 13

  7. Future Efforts • Aerogravity must be downward continued or otherwise combined with existing surface gravity data • Lidar data must be finalized • Mean Dynamic Topography model developed • The models need to be compared for mutual validation: Geoid + MDT + Tide = lidar-obs instantaneous sea surface • The next study area will flow from the Florida panhandle through Louisiana into Texas along the Gulf coast • MDT issues aren’t as severe there, but terrestrial subsidence issues are very significant in Louisiana • Proof of concept for a larger production in FY08 and beyond

  8. Conclusions • Significant errors exist within the NAVD 88 • Similar magnitude errors could exist within EGM96 or other EGM’s • Future EGM’s will directly impact the gravimetric geoid solutions at the long to intermediate wavelengths • Seamless gravity data is needed from deep ocean onto shore and off the opposite national coast(s) to resolve shorter wavelengths • Resulting gravimetric models can be studied in the context of MDT models to determine the best fitting littoral geoid • The implication then would be that these models would also be suitable in the interior • Such geoid models will better resolve orthometric heights and provide an improved relationship between oceanographic and terrestrial applications

More Related