Evaluation of EGM2008 Within Geopotential Space from GPS, Tide Gauges and Altimetry

Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 136)

Abstract

The new global Earth gravitational model EGM2008 has been evaluated within geopotential space by comparison with its predecessor EGM96 and the GRACE combination model EIGEN-GL04C. The methodology comprises establishing geodetic coordinates of mean sea level (MSL) from GPS observations, tide gauge (TG) time series and levelling. The gravity potential at MSL was estimated at each TG location by utilising the ellipsoidal harmonic coefficients of the adopted gravity field models to their maximum degree and order. This study uses data from 23 TGs around the Baltic Sea, nine in the UK and one in France. Comparison involves testing the agreement between geopotential values for each country as gravity potentials at MSL are supposed to be consistent for regions where mean dynamic topography (MDT) does not differ significantly. Results show significant improvement with the EGM2008 model compared against its counterparts. The study shows the effect of omission errors on the solution by limiting the EGM2008 model to maximum degree and order 360 in the regional study. In addition to the regional study, EGM2008 was also evaluated globally using MSL derived from altimetric data. The global study shows that W0, the potential value on the geoid, is not affected by high degree terms of the EGM2008.

References

  1. Ardalan A, Grafarend E, Kakkuri J (2002) National height datum, the Gauss-Listing geoid level value W 0 and its time variation W 0 (Baltic Sea Level project: epochs 1990.8, 1993.8, 1997.4). J Geodesy 76(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ardalan AA, Grafarend EW (2000) Reference ellipsoidal gravity potential field and gravity intensity field of degree/order 360/360 (manual of using ellipsoidal harmonic coefficients ellipfree.dat and ellipmean.dat). http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/gi/research/index.html#projects
  3. Blewitt G (2008) Fixed point theorems of GPS carrier phase ambiguity resolution and their application to massive network processing: Ambizap. J Geophys Res B Solid Earth 113(12)Google Scholar
  4. Boehm J, Werl B, Schuh H (2006) Troposphere mapping functions for GPS and very long baseline interferometry from European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts operational analysis data. J Geophys Res B Solid Earth 111(2)Google Scholar
  5. Carton JA, Chepurin G, Cao X, Giese B (2000) A simple ocean data assimilation analysis of the global upper ocean 1950-95. Part I: methodology. J Phys Oceanogr 30(2):294–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Douglas BC (1991) Global sea level rise. J Geophys Res 96(C4):6981–6992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Förste C, Flechtner F, Schmidt R, König R, Meyer U, Stubenvoll R, Rothacher M, Barthelmes F, Neumayer H, Biancale R (2006) A mean global gravity field model from the combination of satellite mission and altimetry/gravimetry surface data: EIGEN-GL04C. Geophys Res Abstr 8:03462Google Scholar
  8. Hernandez F, Schaeffer P (2001) The CLS01 mean sea surface: a validation with the GSFC00 surface. press, CLS Ramonville StAgne, FranceGoogle Scholar
  9. Hughes CW, Bingham RJ (2008) An oceanographer’s guide to GOCE and the geoid. Ocean Sci 4(1):15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jekeli C, Lee JK, Kwon JH (2007) On the computation and approximation of ultra-high-degree spherical harmonic series. J Geodesy 81(9):603–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lemoine FG, Kenyon SC, Factor JK, Trimmer RG, Pavlis NK, Chinn DS, Cox CM, Klosko SM, Luthcke SB, Torrence MH (1998) The Development of the Joint NASA GSFC and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency(NIMA) Geopotential Model EGM 96. NASA, (19980218814)Google Scholar
  12. Lyard F, Lefevre F, Letellier T, Francis O (2006) Modelling the global ocean tides: modern insights from FES2004. Ocean Dyn 56(5–6):394–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McCarthy DD, Petit G (2004) IERS Conventions 2003. IERS Technical Note, 32, p 127Google Scholar
  14. Pavlis N, Kenyon S, Factor J, Holmes S (2008) Earth gravitational model 2008. In SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, vol 27:761–763Google Scholar
  15. Poutanen M, Kakkuri J (1999) Final results of the Baltic Sea level 1997 GPS Campaign. Rep Finnish Geodetic Institute. 99(2)Google Scholar
  16. Roemmich D, Riser S, Davis R, Desaubies Y (2004) Autonomous profiling floats: workhorse for broadscale ocean observations. J Mar Technol Soc 38:31–39Google Scholar
  17. Sanchez L (2008) Approach for the establishment of a global vertical reference level. In: Proceedings of the VI Hotine-Marussi Symposium, Springer, May 2008Google Scholar
  18. Schmid R, Steigenberger P, Gendt G, Ge M, Rothacher M (2007) Generation of a consistent absolute phase-center correction model for GPS receiver and satellite antennas. J Geodesy 81(12):781–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Woodworth PL, Tsimplis MN, Flather RA, Shennan I (1999) A review of the trends observed in British Isles mean sea level data measured by tide gauges. Geophys J Int 136(3):651–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zumberge JF, Heflin MB, Jefferson DC, Watkins MM, Webb FH (1997) Precise point positioning for the efficient and robust analysis of GPS data from large networks. J Geophys Res 102:5005–5017CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Dayoub
    • 1
  • P. Moore
    • 1
  • N. T. Penna
    • 1
  • S. J. Edwards
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Civil Engineering and GeosciencesNewcastle UniversityNewcastleUK

Personalised recommendations