yan m. wang and d.r. roman national geodetic survey noaa potsdam, germany, july 5-9, 2004
DESCRIPTION
Validation of Gravity Models from CHAMP/GRACE Gravity Missions Using the GPS/leveling Data from the Continental US. Yan M. Wang and D.R. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004. Overview. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Yan M. Wang and D.R. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062723/5681401c550346895dab72f3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Validation of Gravity Models from CHAMP/GRACE Gravity Missions Using the GPS/leveling Data from
the Continental USYan M. Wang and D.R. Roman
National Geodetic SurveyNOAA
Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004
![Page 2: Yan M. Wang and D.R. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062723/5681401c550346895dab72f3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Overview
• Validate GGM01S/C & EIGEN_3P against 14460 GPS/leveling implied geoid undulations scattered over the U.S. and parts of Canada
• Compare GGM01S/C & EIGEN_3P to geoid changes deduced from 10 years of TOPEX/Poseidon altimetry data over the Great Lakes
![Page 3: Yan M. Wang and D.R. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062723/5681401c550346895dab72f3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
GPS/leveling Comparisons
Comparison description:
• Geoid is computed from coefficient models in full degree and order and to degree and order 90, then augmented with EGM96 to degree 360
• GPS/leveling data are converted from NAVD88 to ITRF96, then compared with models
![Page 4: Yan M. Wang and D.R. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062723/5681401c550346895dab72f3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: Yan M. Wang and D.R. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062723/5681401c550346895dab72f3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Statistics of DifferencesUnits are in cm
Model (+EGM96)
No. of Pts. STD
GGM01S
(n=120)
14145 47.3
GGM01C
(n=200)
14181 39.2
EIGEN_3P
(n=140)
13818 55.9
![Page 6: Yan M. Wang and D.R. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062723/5681401c550346895dab72f3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Statistics of DifferencesUnits are in cm
Model (+EGM96)
No. of Pts. STD
GGM01S
(n=90)
14183 36.5
GGM01C
(n=90)
14182 38.1
EIGEN_3P
(n=90)
14124 47.7
![Page 7: Yan M. Wang and D.R. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062723/5681401c550346895dab72f3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Lake Geoid Comparisons
Comparison description:
• Lake surface is an equipotential surface
• 10 years of TOPEX/Poseidon altimeter data provide accurate mean lake surface with 2-3 cm accuracy (Beckley, private communication)
• Geoid changes are compared over two tracks (Lake Superior and Huron)
![Page 8: Yan M. Wang and D.R. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062723/5681401c550346895dab72f3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
T/P Tracks Over Lake Superior
![Page 9: Yan M. Wang and D.R. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062723/5681401c550346895dab72f3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Geoid Changes (Lake Superior)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
0 50 100 150 200
Distance (S/N, km)
Met
er
N(alt.)
N(EGM96)
N(GGM01S)
N(GGM01C)
N(EIGN_3P)
res.(N(EGM96)
res.(GGM01S)
res.(GGM01C)
res.(EIGN_3P)
![Page 10: Yan M. Wang and D.R. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062723/5681401c550346895dab72f3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Statistics of Differences(Lake Superior) Units are in cm
Model
(+EGM96)No. of Pts. Mean/RMS
EGM96 27 0.231/0.277
GGM01S(N=120)
27 0.149/0.168
GGM01C(N=200)
27 0.159/0.189
EIGEN_3P(N=140)
27 -0.132/0.159
![Page 11: Yan M. Wang and D.R. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062723/5681401c550346895dab72f3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Statistics of Differences(Lake Superior) Units are in cm
Model
(+EGM96)No. of Pts. Mean/RMS
EGM96 27 0.231/0.277
GGM01S(N=90)
27 0.098/0.125
GGM01C(N=90)
27 0.071/0.096
EIGEN_3P(N=90)
27 0.212/0.286
![Page 12: Yan M. Wang and D.R. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062723/5681401c550346895dab72f3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
T/P Tracks Over Lake Huron
![Page 13: Yan M. Wang and D.R. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062723/5681401c550346895dab72f3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Geoid Changes (Lake Huron)
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
0 50 100 150 200
Distance (N/S, km)
Met
er
N(alt.)
N(EGM96)
N(GGM01S)
N(GGM01C)
N(EIGN_3P)
res.(N(EGM96)
res.(GGM01S)
res.(GGM01C)
res.(EIGN_3P)
![Page 14: Yan M. Wang and D.R. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062723/5681401c550346895dab72f3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Statistics of Differences(Lake Huron) Units are in cm
Model
(+EGM96)No. of Pts. Mean/RMS
EGM96 31 0.121/0.257
GGM01S(N=120)
31 -0.300/0.415
GGM01C(N=200)
31 -0.358/0.406
EIGEN_3P(N=140)
31 0.510/0.644
![Page 15: Yan M. Wang and D.R. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062723/5681401c550346895dab72f3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Statistics of Differences(Lake Huron) Units are in cm
Model
(+EGM96)No. of Pts. Mean/RMS
EGM96 31 0.121/0.257
GGM01S(N=90)
31 0.045/0.176
GGM01C(N=90)
31 0.022/0.162
EIGEN_3P(N=90)
31 0.246/0.346
![Page 16: Yan M. Wang and D.R. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062723/5681401c550346895dab72f3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Conclusions
• Cutoff degree and orders at 90 for all models and augmented by EGM96 to 360 improves the comparisons
• GGM01S (n<=90)+EGM96 performs the best in GPS/leveling comparisons
• GGM01C performs the best in lake surface comparisons
• Recommendations: GGM01S (n<=90)+EGM96 is recommended
![Page 17: Yan M. Wang and D.R. Roman National Geodetic Survey NOAA Potsdam, Germany, July 5-9, 2004](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062723/5681401c550346895dab72f3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Web Information
• Lake monitoring program supported by USDA:
http://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/cropexplorer/global_reservoir