Environmental Geodesy Lecture 11 (April 4, 2011): Loading - Predicting loading signals - Atmospheric loading - Ocean tidal loading - Non-tidal ocean loading.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
ILRS Workshop, 2008, A 33 Year Time History of the J2 Changes from SLR Minkang Cheng and Byron D. Tapley Center for Space Research.
Advertisements

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,
The postglacial rebound signal of Fennoscandia - observed by absolute gravimetry, GPS, and tide gauges Bjørn Ragnvald Pettersen Department of Mathematical.
Glacial Isostatic Adjustment Contributions to Tide Gauge, Altimetry and GRACE Observations Glenn Milne Dept of Earth Sciences University of Durham, UK.
Effect of Surface Loading on Regional Reference Frame Realization Hans-Peter Plag Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology and Seismological Laboratory University.
Present-Day Sea Level Change Present-Day Sea Level Change Assessment and Key Uncertainties Anny Cazenave Anny Cazenave LEGOS, Toulouse.
2-3 November 2009NASA Sea Level Workshop1 The Terrestrial Reference Frame and its Impact on Sea Level Change Studies GPS VLBI John Ries Center for Space.
Environmental Geodesy Lecture 4 (February 8, 2011): Earth's Gravity Field - Introductory Remarks - Basics: Potential Theory - Gravity Potential of the.
Environmental Geodesy
Analysis of Seasonal Signals in GPS Position Time Series Peng Fang Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego, USA Toulouse.
Facilitating Joint Analysis of Data From Several Systems Using Geophysical Models Hans-Peter Plag, William C. Hammond, Geoffrey Blewitt Nevada Bureau of.
Principles of Sea Level Measurement Long-term tide gauge records  What is a tide station?  How is sea level measured relative to the land?  What types.
Time-depending validation of ocean mass anomalies from GRACE by means of satellite altimetry and numerical models Henryk Dobslaw and Maik Thomas GeoForschungsZentrum.
Cryospheric and Hydrologic Contributions to Global Sea Level Change M. Tamisiea Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory R. Steven Nerem University of Colorado.
Recent results from GRACE in Greenland and Antarctica Isabella Velicogna* and John Wahr** * ESS, University of California Irvine, Irvine CA ** Dept Of.
Specifying the Combined Effect of Data and Representation Error for Altimetry Data Assimilation Alexey Kaplan and Mark A. Cane Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
1 Refined European sea level estimations by combining altimetry, tide gauges, hydrographic and other data sets with improved regional GIA modeling and.
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.
I. Sasgen et al. MAGMA Seminar, May 25, 2005, Prague Geodetic signatures of glacial changes in Antarctica Ingo Sasgen Supervision: Detlef Wolf, Zdeněk.
J. Famiglietti 1, T. Syed 1, P. Yeh 1,2 and M. Rodell 3 1 Dept. of Earth System Science, University of California,Irvine, USA 2 now at: Institute of Industrial.
Generalization of Farrell's loading theory for applications to mass flux measurement using geodetic techniques J. Y. Guo (1,2), C.K. Shum (1) (1) Laboratory.
Using GRACE to estimate changes in land water storage: present limitations and future potential John Wahr, Sean Swenson, Isabella Velicogna University.
Last Time: Introduction to Gravity Governed by LaPlace’s equation: with solution of the form: If we have a spherical body with mass M and constant (or.
Hydrogeodesy: Can it help to reach the Millennium Development Goal for Water in Africa? Norman L. Miller IGCP 565 Fifth Annual Workshop October 2012.
Chapter 8: The future geodetic reference frames Thomas Herring, Hans-Peter Plag, Jim Ray, Zuheir Altamimi.
Free Association well, Cheap Association. 1 Potpourri.
Thermosteric Effects on Long-Term Global Sea Level Change Jianli Chen Center for Space Research, University of Texas at Austin, USA
Lecture 7 – More Gravity and GPS Processing GISC February 2009.
Research and Development Division – Oceanography Group Implementing tides and self-attraction and loading effects in ECCO estimates Rui M. Ponte Atmospheric.
Sea-Level Change Driven by Recent Cryospheric and Hydrological Mass Flux Mark Tamisiea Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics James Davis Emma Hill.
GGOS User Requirements and Functional Specifications Richard S. Gross Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA Global.
(a) Pre-earthquake and (b) post-earthquake Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) images of North Sentinel Island. The.
Water storage variations from time-variable gravity data Andreas Güntner Helmholtz Centre Potsdam - GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences Section.
GPS: “Where goeth thou” Thomas Herring With results from Jen Alltop: Geosystems Thesis Katy Quinn: Almost graduated Ph.D
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.
IUFRO_20051 Variations of land water storage over the last half century K. Laval, T. Ngo-duc, J. Polcher University PM Curie Paris/Lab Meteor Dyn /IPSL.
Recent applications of GRACE gravity data for continental hydrology Andreas Güntner Helmholtz Centre Potsdam GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences.
State-of-the-art physical models for calculating atmospheric pressure loading effects 1 Geodätische Woche October, Köln, Germany Dudy D.
G51C-0694 Development of the Estimation Service of the Earth‘s Surface Fluid Load Effects for Space Geodetic Techniques for Space Geodetic Techniques Hiroshi.
Key points from last lecture: 1 - Basic Laws: -Unit Conversion: -Properties of Water: -Watersheds: -Regional Water Balance:
Hydrogeodesy: what is it, how can it help, what are the challenges? Hans-Peter Plag Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology and Seismological Laboratory, University.
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.
WOCE and BEYOND WOCE and BEYOND Nov Sea Level Rise: Can we explain what we measure? Anny Cazenave LEGOS-GRGS/CNES Toulouse, France.
Gravimetry Geodesy Rotation
A. Güntner | Hydrogravimetry 1 Sub-humid climate (Mediterranean) Mean annual precipitation: 1200 mm, (highly seasonal) Elevation: 160 m amsl Early results.
The Earth Rotational Excitations in a Coherent Geophysical Fluids System Jianli Chen Center for Space Research, University of Texas at Austin, USA
E. Schrama TU Delft, DEOS Error characteristics estimated from CHAMP, GRACE and GOCE derived geoids and from altimetry derived.
GRACE Science Team Meeting October 15-17, 2007 Potsdam Germany Alternative Gravity Field Representations: Solutions, Characteristics, and Issues Michael.
RIGTC, Geodetic Observatory Pecný The institute's mission is basic and applied research in geodesy and cadastre Designated institute of Czech Metrology.
Parameters : Temperature profile Bulk iron and olivine weight fraction Pressure gradient. Modeling of the Martian mantle Recently taken into account :
Principles of the Global Positioning System Lecture 18 Prof. Thomas Herring Room A;
Lecture 7 – Gravity and Related Issues GISC February 2008.
Assessing the GIA Contribution to SNARF Mark Tamisiea and Jim Davis Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Towards a standard model for present-day signals due to postglacial rebound H.-P. Plag, C. Kreemer Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology and Seismological.
A proposal for a consistent model of air pressure loading as part of the International Terrestrial Reference System (ITRS) Conventions Plag, H.-P. (1),
Ingo Sasgen 1, Henryk Dobslaw 1, Zdenek Martinec 2, and Maik Thomas 1 (1) GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Department 1: Geodesy and Remote Sensing Section.
12/12/01Fall AGU Vertical Reference Frames for Sea Level Monitoring Thomas Herring Department of Earth, Atmosphere and Planetary Sciences
IGARSS 2011, Vancuver, Canada July 28, of 14 Chalmers University of Technology Monitoring Long Term Variability in the Atmospheric Water Vapor Content.
Orbit Selection for the WATER HM Mission R. S. Nerem CCAR, CIRES, University of Colorado D. P. Chambers Center for Space Research, University of Texas.
Last Time: Introduction to Gravity Governed by LaPlace’s equation: with solution of the form: If we have a spherical body with mass M and constant (or.
Last Time: Gravity Measurements may be surface-based (i.e., taken with instruments placed on the ground surface) or space-based ; absolute or relative.
Annette Eicker GRACE and geophysical applications Annette Eicker Institute of Geodesy and Geoinformation University of Bonn TexPoint fonts used in EMF.
Hydrosphere Continental Hydrology Surface water (river, lakes, runoff) Groundwater Soil moisture Wetlands Snow Oceans Water vapor (Atmosphere) Icecaps/glaciers.
Geodesy & Crustal Deformation
Detecting Hydrological Loading Effect (HLE) variations from GRACE/GPS over the Amazon basin. S. Melachroinos1, G. Ramillien2, J-M. Lemoine3, F. Perosanz3,
Description of the climate system and of its components
Geodesy & Crustal Deformation
Geodesy & Crustal Deformation
Presentation transcript:

Environmental Geodesy Lecture 11 (April 4, 2011): Loading - Predicting loading signals - Atmospheric loading - Ocean tidal loading - Non-tidal ocean loading - Hydrological loading - Cryospheric loading - Summary

Precision of observations versus Precision of model predictions Predicting Loading Signals Observations: For example: 3-D surface displacements or deformation from geodetic measurements; gravity changes from absolute and superconducting gravimeters; gravity variations from satellite missions. Time scales from less than 1 hour up to decades Model predictions: Based on: theory (continuum mechanics); Earth model; surface loads.

Predicting Loading Signals Surface Loading Model predictions Based on: - theory (continuum mechanics) - Earth model - surface loads

Predicting Loading Signals Model predictions: Mostly used: Green's function approach (boundary value problem) Basic assumption concerning the load: thin mass distribution Widely used earth model: spherically symmetric, non-rotating, elastic, isotrop (SNREI) elastic parameters: Preliminary Reference Earth Model (PREM) Advantage of SNREI: Green's function depends only on angular distance between load and observer. Problems: boundary undulations (e.g., surface topography, core-mantel boundary); lateral heterogeneities (density, bulk modulus, shear modulus); global ocean; elastic (up to what time scale?).

Predicting Loading Signals Depending on the Earth model, we get the following classes of Green's functions:

Predicting Loading Signals Computation of Love Numbers for Spherically symmetric, non rotating, elastic, isotrop models (SNREI): - PREM or ? - PREM: surface layer: 3 km ocean - PREM: frequency-dependent shear modulus: elastic module? - PREM: parameterization of depth- dependency Green's Functions for SNREI Earth Models:

Predicting Loading Signals Plag et al. (1998) proposed to use surface loading to constrain Earth models Blewitt et al., (2005) proposed to use surface loading to constrain surface mass redistribution (in particular hydrological mass). Depends on sensitivity to Earth model, mass, and theoretical approximations. We will look at: - Earth model; - loads

Predicting Loading Signals Earth models: lateral heterogeneities Now at:

Predicting Loading Signals Earth models: lateral heterogeneities

Predicting Loading Signals Earth models: lateral heterogeneities Towards a 3D Reference Earth Model Five high-resolution mantel models available: - Masters et al. (SIO) - Dziewonski et al. (HRV) - Romanowicz et al. (Berkeley) - Grand (UT Austin) - Ritsema et al (Caltech)

Predicting Loading Signals Earth models: lateral heterogeneities

Predicting Loading Signals Earth models: lateral heterogeneities

Predicting Loading Signals Earth models: lateral heterogeneities Status: - SNREI most likely not sufficient; - 3-D Earth modes are developing, transition from PREM (SNREI) to REM (3-D) seems feasible; - But: still considerable difference between existing 3-D models. Not discussed: - anisotropy; - non-hydrostatic pre-stress; - thin-load assumption.

Surface loads Relevant surface loads: - atmospheric loading; - ocean loading (tidal and non-tidal); - continental water storage (lakes, rivers, soil moisture, groundwater, reservoirs); - land-based ice masses (glaciers, ice caps, and ice sheets); - man-made mass relocation (mining, etc.) Data sets: - atmosphere: global surface pressure, 6 hours; ocean response? - tidal ocean: ocean tide models; - non-tidal ocean: circulation models (e.g., 6 hours), satellite altimetry (e.g., 10 days); - continental water storage: observations and models - ice: global data bases

Difference between model orography and surface topography ETOPO5 versus NCEP Resolution:2.5 x 2.5 degrees NCEP ref. surf. ECMWF ref. surf. ECMWF-NCEP Atmospheric loading ETOPO5 NCEP ETOPO5-NCEP

Steps to compute atmospheric loading signal: - pressure field at topography: geopotential heights - anomaly: reference pressure field - convolution with Green's function SLP SUP REP PAN UP Atmospheric loading

Difference between air pressure data sets Reference surfaces for air pressure ECMWF:Pressure at sea surface NCEP: Pressure at model orography(?) height Comparison: at topographic height Resolution:2.5 x 2.5 degrees NCEP ref. surf. ECMWF ref. surf. ECMWF-NCEP Atmospheric loading

Mean Std Maximum Daily Weekly mbar Range of Pressure anomaly Atmospheric loading

Differences between Decadal Mean and Long-term Mean Range: -4 to 4 mbar Left: Mean Decadal variability of Surface Pressure Atmospheric loading

Range: -12 to 12 mm Time: to 2004.o Atmospheric loading

Ocean Tidal Loading - Load depends on frequency - Standard approach: - use a (low) number of tidal constituents; GIPSY: M2, S2, N2, K2, K1, O1, P1, Q1, MF, MM, SSA. - compute station-dependent loading coefficients for each constituent - available at - Problems: - many different ocean tide models; still considerable inter-model differences; - Incomplete representation of harmonic potential; - In some areas, shallow-water constituents not considered.

Atmospheric loading Ocean Tidal Loading SchwiderskiLe Provost Radial Displacement for M2 Tide in the Icelandic Sea (m)

Atmospheric loading Non-Tidal Ocean Loading - Load (mass distribution and ocean bottom pressure) needs to be modeled; - Standard approach: - use ocean circulation model output; IERS products: * Global OAM mass and motion terms (c ) * Global OAM mass and motion terms (ECCO_50yr) * Global OAM mass and motion terms (ECCO_kf049f) * Global OAM mass and motion terms (Johnson 2001) * Global OAM mass and motion terms (Ponte 1998) * Measurements of ocean bottom pressure (GLOUP) * Model for ocean bottom pressure (ECCO) * Model for oceanic center-of-mass (c ) * Model for oceanic center-of-mass (Dong MICOM 1997) * Model for oceanic center-of-mass (Dong MOM 1997) * Model for oceanic center-of-mass (ECCO_50yr) * Model for oceanic center-of-mass (ECCO_kf049f) - Problems: - many different models; still considerable inter-model differences; - mass conservation (due to Bousinesque approximation) - large latency.

Atmospheric loading Hydrological Loading - Load is a result of complex processes with different spatial and temporal scales; - Standard approach: - use output of land water storage models; IERS Geophysical Fluids: * Continental water flux data (monthly) * Continental water storage data (monthly) * Hydrological Excitations of EOP Variations (daily) * List of Global Major Artificial Reservoirs * Water Storage Change from Grace (monthly) * Water Storage Data from CPC (monthly) * Water Storage Data from ECMWF (daily) * Water Storage Data from GLDAS (daily) * Water Storage Data from NCEP/NCAR (daily) - Problems: - large inter-model differences; - data with large latencies;

Atmospheric loading Hydrological Loading JPL MASCON, secular trends , Watkins, 2008

Atmospheric loading Cryospheric Loading - Load history is important because of large changes in the past: postglacial rebound and response to current changes - Standard approach: - separate post-glacial and current changes; - post-glacial: geophysical models; - current changes: mass balance from satellite altimetry, GRACE, in situ observations, models; - Problems: - PGR models are uncertain due to rheology, lateral heterogeneities, rotational effects, ice history - errors in PGR map into errors in current mass changes; - conversion of ice surface elevation changes into mass changes.

Atmospheric loading Cryospheric Loading - Accelerated ice melt is a problem for the reference frame

Atmospheric loading Cryospheric Loading Post-glacial rebound; example sea level changes Method: Extrapolation of predicted present- day signal in sea level; Mean of many predictions Example: 14 different predictions Signal: -10 to 5 mm/yr Uncertainty from standard deviation: Max. ± 1.2 mm/yr, relative: ~15% Mean of 14 models STD

Atmospheric loading Cryospheric Loading

Summary Potential sources of disagreement: - lateral heterogeneities in the Earth model not taken into account; - errors in GPS estimates of tropospheric delay, i.e., loading signal partly absorbed by estimated delays; - errors/uncertainties in surface loads/pressure: - for air pressure, deviations of the ocean response to atmospheric forcing from Inverted Barometer (IB); - air pressure at high latitudes; - non-tidal ocean loading: mass conservation of ocean models; - land water storage: soil moisture and groundwater changes; - ice loads: separation of signals from past and current mass changes. - annual signals in time series of station heights due to other processes than loading. Many studies aiming at validation of predictions of surface loading signals in space-geodetic observations. General conclusion: some improvement of the RMS at some sites, but also considerable disagreement between model predictions and observations.