Atmospheric Effects on Gravity Space Missions
The varying atmosphere exerts two disturbing forces on the gravity signal: first the so-called direct effect or Newtonian attraction, where the object in questions is attracted by the atmospheric mass itself; and second the indirect effect or atmospheric loading, where the overlying atmospheric mass has a deforming effect on the Earth’s surface, also changing the measured gravity signal. In satellite gravity missions, these short-period signals cause aliasing effects in the gravity field determination and their elimination is indispensable. For the determination of the required atmospheric gravity field coefficients, it is state of the art to use high-resolution numerical weather models, which take into account the three-dimensional distribution of the atmospheric mass. In this part of the book, we address many relevant issues, including the theoretical fundamentals of the Earth’s gravity field and its description using spherical harmonics, as well as the basics of the atmospheric pressure distribution. A short overview of the gravity satellite missions of the last decade like GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) is given and the impact of the atmosphere on the satellite measurements is examined. We present a descriptions of the oceanic mass response to overlying atmospheric pressure and of the models used for de-aliasing of atmospheric effects.
- J. P. Boy and B. F. Chao. Precise evaluation of atmospheric loading effects on earth’s time-variable gravity field.Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, B08412, doi:10.1029/2002JB002333, 2005.
- J. P. Boy, P. Gegout, and J. Hinderer. Reduction of surface gravity data from global atmospheric pressure loading. Geophysics Journal International, 149, pp 534–545, 2001.Google Scholar
- S. R. Dickman. Theoretical investigation of the oceanic inverted barometer hypothesis. Geophysical Research, 93, pp 14.941-14.946, 1988.Google Scholar
- H. Dobslaw and M. Thomas. Simulation and observation of global ocean mass anomalies. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, C05040, 2007.Google Scholar
- N. Ekholm. Über die Höhe der homogenen Atmosphäre und die Masse der Atmosphäre. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 19, pp 249–260, 1902.Google Scholar
- W. E. Farrell. Deformation of the Earth by Surface Loads. Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 10, 3, pp. 761–797, 1972.Google Scholar
- F. Flechtner. AOD1B Product Description Document for Product Releases 01 to 04 (rev. 3.1, April 13, 2007). Technical report, GFZ, 2007.Google Scholar
- Th. Gruber, e.motion Team, and NGGM Team. Recent Studies on Future Gravity Field Missions in Europe: e.motion vs. NGGM. GRACE Science Team Meeting: GRACE Follow-On and Data, Continuity, 2011.Google Scholar
- Th. Gruber, Th. Peters, and L. Zenner. The Role of the Atmosphere for Satellite Gravity Field Missions. Observing our Changing Earth, International Association of Geodesy Symposia 133, ed. by M. Sideris, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2009.Google Scholar
- Robert L. Higdon. A comparison of two formulations of barotropic - baroclinic splitting for layered models of ocean circulation. Ocean Modelling, 24, 1–2, pp 29–45, 2008.Google Scholar
- N. Hirose, I. Fukumori, V. Zlotnicki, and R. M. Ponte. High-frequency barotropic response to atmospheric disturbances: Sensitivity to forcing, topography, and friction. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2001.Google Scholar
- B. Hofmann-Wellenhof and H. Moritz. Physical Geodesy. Springer Wien New York, 2005.Google Scholar
- J. W. Hurrell and H. van Loon. Decadal variations in climate associated with the north atlantic oscillation. Climatic Change, 36, pp 301–326, 1997.Google Scholar
- M.J. McPhaden. El Niño and La Niña: Causes and Global Consequences. Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change, Vol 1, John Wiley and Sons, LTD., Chichester, UK, pp 353–370, 2002.Google Scholar
- R. Ponte and P. Gaspar. Regional Analysis of the Inverted Barometer Effect over the Global Ocean Using TOPEX/POSEIDON Data and Model results.Journal of Geophysical Research, 104, C7, 15587–15601, 1999.Google Scholar
- W. Rabbel and J. Zschau. Static deformation and gravity changes at the earth’s surface due to atmospheric loading.Journal of Geophysics, 56, 81–99, 1985.Google Scholar
- C. Reigber, H. Luehr, and P. Schwintzer. CHAMP mission status. Advanced Space Research, 30(2), 129–134, 2002.Google Scholar
- R. Rummel, J. Müller, H. Oberndorfer, N. Sneeuw. Satellite Gravity Gradiometry with GOCE. Towards an Integrated Global Geodetic Observing System (IGGOS), IAG, Symposium 120, 66–72, 2000.Google Scholar
- S. Swenson and J. Wahr. Estimated Effects of the Vertical Structure of Atmospheric Mass on the Time- Variable Geoid.Journal of Geophysical Research, 107, 2194, doi:10.1029/2000JB000024, 2002.
- B. Tapley, S. Bettadput, M. Watkins, and C. Reigber. The Gravity recovery and Climate Experiment: Mission overview and early results. Geophysical research Letters, 31, L09607, doi:10.1029/2004GL019920, 2004.
- M. Thomas. Ocean induced variations of Earth’s rotation - Results from a simultaneous model of global circulation and tides. PhD thesis, Univ. of Hamburg, Germany, 2002.Google Scholar
- W. Torge.Gravimetry. Walter de Gruyter-Berlin-New York, ISBN: 3-11-010702-3, 1989.Google Scholar
- K.E. Trenberth and C.J. Guillemot. The total Mass of the Atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research, 99, D11, 23079–23088, 1994.Google Scholar
- K.E. Trenberth and L. Smith. The Mass of the Atmosphere: A Constraint on Global Analyses.Journal of Climate, 18, 6, 864–875, 2005.Google Scholar
- I. Velicogna, J. Wahr, and H. Van den Dool. Can Surface Pressure be used to remove atmospheric contributions from GRACE data with sufficient accuracy to recover hydrological signals? Journal of Geophysical Research, 106, B8, 16415–16434, 2001.Google Scholar
- L. Völgyesi. Geodetic applications of torsion balance measurements in Hungary. Reports on Geodesy, Warsaw University of Technology, 57, 2, 203–212, 2001.Google Scholar
- J. Wahr, M. Molenaar, and F. Bryan. Time variability of the Earth’s gravity Field: hydrological and oceanic effects and their possible detection using GRACE. Journal of Geophysical Research, 103, 30, 205–230, 1998.Google Scholar
- R. J. Warburton and J. M. Goodkind. The influence of barometric pressure fluctuations on gravity. Geophys. J. Roy. Astron. Soc., 48, 281–292, 1977.Google Scholar
- M. M. Watkins, F. Flechtner, and B. D. Tapley. Status of the GRACE Follow-On Mission. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2010, abstract G44A–01, 2010.Google Scholar
- C. Wunsch and D. Stammer. Atmospheric loading and the oceanic ’inverted barometer’ effect. Reviews of Geophysics, 35, 1, pp 79–107, 1997.Google Scholar
- N. Yu, J.M. Kohel, J.R. Kellogg, and L. Maleki. Development of an atom-interferometer gravity gradiometer for gravity measurements from Space. Appl. Phys. B 84, 647–652 (2006), doi:10.1007/s00340-006-2376-x, 2006.
- L. Zenner, T. Gruber, A. Jäggi, and G. Beutler. Propagation of atmospheric model errors to gravity potential harmonics - Impact on GRACE De-Aliasing. Geophysical Journal International, 182(2), 797–807, 2010.Google Scholar
- L. Zenner, T. Gruber, G. Beutler, A. Jäggi, F. Flechtner, T. Schmidt, J. Wickert, E. Fagiolini, G. Schwarz, and T. Trautmann. Using Atmospheric Uncertainties for GRACE De-Aliasing - First Results. Geodesy for Planet Earth, International Association of Geodesy Symposia, Springer, 147–152, ISBN 987-3-642-20337-4, 2011.Google Scholar