WE WA VI ST PE MO MB MC CO BH MC MB MO PE ST VI WA Comparison of GRACE gravity field solutions, hydrological models and time series of superconducting.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The quest for a consistent signal in ground and GRACE gravity time series M. Van Camp – B. Meurers – O. de Viron L. Métivier – O. Francis Special thanks:
Advertisements

Time Variable Gravity Implementation issues for Jason L. Cerri, S. Houry, J.P. Berthias Ocean Topography Science Team Meeting - Hobart, Australia – March.
The new IGFS Service: “GGP-ICET Service” From the Earth Tides Symposium in Warsaw.
Jeffrey Walker Factors Affecting the Detection of a Soil Moisture Signal in Field Relative Gravity Measurements 1 Adam Smith, 1 Jeffrey Walker, 1 Andrew.
2006 AGU Fall Meeting. 14 Dec. 2006, San Francisco – Poster #G43A-0985 Jim Ray (NOAA/NGS), Tonie van Dam (U. Luxembourg), Zuheir Altamimi (IGN), Xavier.
26/11/2012 – Observatoire de Paris Analysis of wind speed evolution over ocean derived from altimeter missions and models M. Ablain (CLS)
An estimate of post-seismic gravity change caused by the 1960 Chile earthquake and comparison with GRACE gravity fields Y. Tanaka 1, 2, V. Klemann 2, K.
Atmospheric Loading Nicole M. Shivers.  “The Earth’s surface is perpetually being displaced due to temporally varying atmospheric oceanic and continental.
Clima en España: Pasado, presente y futuro Madrid, Spain, 11 – 13 February 1 IMEDEA (UIB - CSIC), Mallorca, SPAIN. 2 National Oceanography Centre, Southampton,
1 Time Variations of the European Gravity Field, David Crossley, Saint Louis University, Missouri, USA Jacques Hinderer, EOST / IPG, Strasbourg,
Determination of Gravity Variations in Northern Europe from GRACE Jürgen Müller, Matthias Neumann-Redlin Institut für Erdmessung, University of Hannover,
Effect of Surface Loading on Regional Reference Frame Realization Hans-Peter Plag Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology and Seismological Laboratory University.
Some Hydrological and Cryospheric Applications of GRACE John Wahr (U of Colorado), Sean Swenson (NCAR), Isabella Velicogna (U of California at Irvine)
Climate change in the Antarctic. Turner et al, Significant warming of the Antarctic Winter Troposphere. Science, vol 311, pp Radiosonde.
POD/Geoid Splinter Summary OSTS Meeting, Hobart 2007.
The influence of extra-tropical, atmospheric zonal wave three on the regional variation of Antarctic sea ice Marilyn Raphael UCLA Department of Geography.
Wavelet method determination of long period tidal waves and polar motion in superconducting gravity data X.-G.. Hu 1,2,*, L.T. Liu 1, Ducarme. B. 3, H.T.
International Terrestrial Reference Frame - Latest Developments Horst Müller 16th International Workshop on Laser Ranging, Poznan, Poland, October
Time-depending validation of ocean mass anomalies from GRACE by means of satellite altimetry and numerical models Henryk Dobslaw and Maik Thomas GeoForschungsZentrum.
Taking the Superconducting Gravimeter to the Field - A new tool for Hydrologic and Other Investigations Clark R. Wilson 1,2,4, Honqiu Wu 1,4, Bridget Scanlon.
Monitoring the Global Sea Level Rise Budget with Jason, Argo and GRACE Observations Eric Leuliette and Laury Miller NOAA/Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry.
Don P. Chambers Center for Space Research The University of Texas at Austin Understanding Sea-Level Rise and Variability 6-9 June, 2006 Paris, France The.
Jim Ray, NOAA/National Geodetic Survey Xavier Collilieux & Paul Rebischung, IGN/LAREG Tonie van Dam, University of Luxembourg Zuheir Altamimi, IGN/LAREG.
Linking sea surface temperature, surface flux, and heat content in the North Atlantic: what can we learn about predictability? LuAnne Thompson School of.
Using GRACE to estimate changes in land water storage: present limitations and future potential John Wahr, Sean Swenson, Isabella Velicogna University.
Assessment of Basin-scale Terrestrial Water Storage Variations from Reprocessed GRACE Gravity Fields for Climate Model Validation L. Zhang, H. Dobslaw,
Detailed Analysis of ECMWF Surface Pressure Data E. Fagiolini 1, T. Schmidt 1, G. Schwarz 2, L. Zenner 3 (1) GFZ Department 1, Potsdam, Germany (2) DLR.
Chapter 8: The future geodetic reference frames Thomas Herring, Hans-Peter Plag, Jim Ray, Zuheir Altamimi.
1 Approximate decorrelation and non-isotropic smoothing of time-variable GRACE gravity field models Jürgen Kusche, Roland Schmidt with input from Susanna.
NKG Working Group for Geodynamics Copenhagen, 23 –24 April, Tasks of a new Working Group on Absolute Gravimetry Herbert Wilmes Federal Agency for.
Sea Level Change Measurements: Estimates from Altimeters Understanding Sea Level Rise and Variability June 6-9, 2006 Paris, France R. S. Nerem, University.
Secular variation in Germany from repeat station data and a recent global field model Monika Korte and Vincent Lesur Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, German Research.
Enhancing the Value of GRACE for Hydrology
Regional climate prediction comparisons via statistical upscaling and downscaling Peter Guttorp University of Washington Norwegian Computing Center
Sea-Level Change Driven by Recent Cryospheric and Hydrological Mass Flux Mark Tamisiea Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics James Davis Emma Hill.
Towards improved GRACE de-aliasing - first results from dynamical and residual ocean tide analysis Wolfgang Bosch 1), Detlef Stammer 2), Frank Flechtner.
June 16th, 2009 Christian Pagé, CERFACS Laurent Terray, CERFACS - URA 1875 Julien Boé, U California Christophe Cassou, CERFACS - URA 1875 Weather typing.
Patagonia Ice Field Melting Observed by GRACE Joint International GSTM and DFG SPP Symposium, October 15-17, 2007 at GFZ Potsdam J.L. Chen 1, C.R. Wilson.
Global Validation of GRACE Gravity Measurements by in-situ and modelled Ocean Bottom Pressure GSTM/SPP 1257 Potsdam, C. Böning, A. Macrander,
Water storage variations from time-variable gravity data Andreas Güntner Helmholtz Centre Potsdam - GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences Section.
AGU Fall meeting Quality assessment of GPS reprocessed Terrestrial Reference Frame 1 IGN/LAREG and GRGS 2 University of Luxembourg X Collilieux.
Seasonal Terrestrial Water Storage Change and Global Mean Sea Level Variation Jianli Chen 1 and Clark Wilson 1,2 Center for Space Research, The University.
The Austrian absolute gravity base net: 27 years of spatial and temporal acquisition of gravity data Ullrich Christian and Diethard Ruess, Federal Office.
Recent applications of GRACE gravity data for continental hydrology Andreas Güntner Helmholtz Centre Potsdam GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences.
GP33A-06 / Fall AGU Meeting, San Francisco, December 2004 Magnetic signals generated by the ocean circulation and their variability. Manoj,
An NSF Science and Technology CenterSAHRA Potential of Distributed GRACE Measurements to Estimate Spatially Variable Terrestrial Water Storage Changes.
Geocenter Variations Derived from GRACE Data Z. Kang, B. Tapley, J. Chen, J. Ries, S. Bettadpur Joint International GSTM and SPP Symposium GFZ Potsdam,
GRACE Mascons and Hydrological Data for the Continents: GRACE ACCESS D. Rowlands (1), F. Lemoine (1), S. Luthcke (1), S. Klosko (2), D. Chinn (2), K. Akoumany.
A. Güntner | Hydrogravimetry 1 Sub-humid climate (Mediterranean) Mean annual precipitation: 1200 mm, (highly seasonal) Elevation: 160 m amsl Early results.
Do Annual Geopotential Variations Affect IGS Products ? J. Ray NOAA/NGS with major help from S. Bettadpur, J. Ries U. Texas/CSR T.-S. Bae Sejong U. X.
   Alys Thomas 1, J.T. Reager 1,2, Jay Famiglietti 1,2,3, Matt Rodell 4 1 Dept. of Earth System Science, 2 UC Center for Hydrologic Modeling, 3 Dept.
Issues in the Comparison of Ground Gravity with GRACE Data David Crossley, Saint Louis U., Dept. Earth & Atmospheric Science, 3507 Laclede Ave., St. Louis.
OSTST Meeting, Hobart, Australia, March 12-15, 2007 EIGEN-5 activities in GFZ and GRGS R. Biancale, J.-M. Lemoine, S. Bruinsma, S. Loyer* CNES/GRGS Toulouse,
Arctic terrestrial water storage changes from GRACE satellite estimates and a land surface hydrology model Fengge Su a Douglas E. Alsdorf b, C.K. Shum.
TOWARDS THE TIME-VARIABLE GRAVITY FIELD FROM CHAMP M. Weigelt, A. Jäggi, L. Prange, W. Keller, N. Sneeuw TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint.
WE WA VI ST PE MO MB MC CO BH MC MB MO PE ST VI WA Comparison of GRACE gravity field solutions, hydrological models and time series of superconducting.
Tropical Oceanic Influences on Global Climate Prashant. D. noaa.gov Climate Diagnostics Center, CIRES, University of Colorado and Physical.
A proposal for a consistent model of air pressure loading as part of the International Terrestrial Reference System (ITRS) Conventions Plag, H.-P. (1),
Vermelding onderdeel organisatie A 3-year series of Earth’s gravity field derived from GRACE range measurements Xianglin Liu, Pavel Ditmar, Qile Zhao,
OSTST Meeting, Hobart, Australia, March 12-15, 2007 On the use of temporal gravity field models derived from GRACE for altimeter satellite orbit determination.
Jason-1 POD reprocessing at CNES Current status and further developments L. Cerri, S. Houry, P. Perrachon, F. Mercier. J.P. Berthias with entries from.
International Ocean Color Science Meeting, Darmstadt, Germany, May 6-8, 2013 III. MODIS-Aqua normalized water leaving radiance nLw III.1. R2010 vs. R2012.
Consistency of Crustal Loading Signals Derived from Models & GPS: Inferences for GPS Positioning Errors Quantify error budget for weekly dNEU GPS positions.
Synthetic benchmark datasets for homogenization of IWV time series
How to constrain the origin, orientation and scale
Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium
Understanding ocean bottom pressure variability with Antares data
Variability of CO2 From Satellite Retrievals and Model Simulations
Variability of CO2 From Satellite Retrievals and Model Simulations
Investigation of site-dependent GPS errors and monument stability using a short-baseline network of braced monuments Emma Hill, Jim Davis, Pedro Elosegui,
Presentation transcript:

WE WA VI ST PE MO MB MC CO BH MC MB MO PE ST VI WA Comparison of GRACE gravity field solutions, hydrological models and time series of superconducting gravimeters in Central Europe Can we separate the regional scale gravity signal in the superconducting gravimeter (SG) data and does it compare with GRACE and hydrological models? If yes, a common signal should exist in the SG time series; they should then be correlated. The question 1 U. Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Inst. Phys. Globe Paris UMR Royal Observatory of Belgium -- 3 IGN France, 4 U. Vienna, 5 U. Luxembourg. Results Figure 1. SG stations de Viron O. 1, Van Camp M. 1,2, Métivier L. 3, Meurers B. 4, Francis O. 5 Figure 4. Phasor diagrams of the annual components obtained from the different SG time series. The phases are spread within ~100 days; i.e. Europe is wetter during the winter! The EOS are defined to isolate a common signal. When the data are dominated by a strong periodic component, the 1 st EOF is at the same period with a phase corresponding to the average phase, weighted by the relative amplitudes. The phase of the EOF = 74 days  March, 14. G41A SG time series in Europe (Figure 1) 10 GRACE solutions:  CSR (NASA), JPL (NASA), GFZ (Potsdam), ITG (Bonn), AIUB (Bern), DTM-1b (Delft), GRGS (CNES). + GFZ, ITG and GRGS not corrected for non-tidal ocean contribution (i.e. oceanic de-aliasing products provided by the different centers are added to the solutions) 2 Hydrological loading models provided by J.-P Boy ( based on GLDAS/Noah (0.25°) and ERA (0.7°) interim reanalysis models. The data Figure 2. SG time series (tidal, atmospheric, polar motion and instrumental drift effects corrected) Figure 3. Correlation between the different SG time series SG time series WE WA VI ST PE MO MB MC CO BH MC MB MO PE ST VI WA (a) With annual(b) Annual removed Not Significant Significant (95%) The correlation significance test is not relevant when a strong periodic component exists, all the more an annual signal. The classical method to compare periodic motions is phasor diagram (Figure 4). When the annual signal is removed, Figure 3b shows that 3 pairs of stations are significantly correlated. But, out of 45 correlation coefficients, a few must be significant at the 95% level, just by chance (the probability to have 3 or more successes is close to 0.4). (left) before and (right) after inverting the sign at the CO, MB, MO, ST, VI and WA underground stations

Acknowledgements SGs vs GRACE & Hydrological models The authors thank the operators of the SG stations. The data from MO, PE and ST were obtained through the GGP project database hosted by the GFZ Potsdam. We are grateful to J.- P. Boy for fruitful discussions and making available the atmospheric and hydrological loading models. We thank L. Vandercoilden for her assistance in the processing of the GGP data, and to H. Wziontek for comments and processing the BH, MC & WE SG time series. Discussion Figure 6. Phase dispersion of the annual components in the GRACE solutions, the hydrological models, the SG time series. There is no significant common annual signal between the different SGs, There is no significant common annual signal between the SGs and the predictions based on the GLDAS/NOAH and ERA hydrological models, There is no significant common annual signal between the SGs and the 10 GRACE solutions. After correcting for the annual signal, there is no more significant correlation between the different SG time series. Recent studies evidenced that most of the gravity effects recorded by SGs are induced by subsurface water dynamics in a radius around the gravimeter smaller than 1000 m; and some authors claim that the local effects, which may mask the large scale ones, must be corrected prior comparison with GRACE. But, even if there is a dominant common signal in the SGs and if local hydrogeological models are perfect, most of the common signal will be removed together with the local effects, and the residuals will be difficult to interpret in terms of large scale load distribution. Terrestrial gravity measurements can be fruitfully used to perform comprehensive, local hydrogeological investigations, as shown in Wettzell using an SG (Creutzfeldt et al., WRR 2010) or in the Larzac karstic area (Jacob et al., 2010); on the other hand GRACE has provided numerous information on large scale hydrological and geodynamic phenomena. But, this study shows that the relevance of their intercomparison is still to be demonstrated. The sign of the SG data from the CO, MB, MO, ST, VI and WA underground stations is inverted Figure 5. Phasor diagrams of the annual components at different SG stations for the 10 different GRACE solutions; the GLDAS and ERA hydrological models. For clarity, the amplitude of the hydrological models is reduced by a factor 2. The phases of the GRACE solutions are within 66 days at all SG sites (42 days without BH, MB, WA & ST closer to the Atlantic ocean, where GRGS and ITG phases show resp. further away and closer from January 1 st, see also Figure 6). The amplitudes of the hydrological models (esp. GLDAS) are much larger than that of SG or GRACE series. Possible causes: topography & building umbrella effects (SG), local hydrogeology (SG), smoothing effect (GRACE). It is difficult to accept from those results that the seasonal signal seen by the SGs is the same as the ones form the GRACE and hydrological models. Available as an e-Poster