Comparison of altimeter‐derived and ship gravity anomalies in the vicinity of the Gulf of California
- 1 January 1998
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Marine Geodesy
- Vol. 21 (4) , 245-259
- https://doi.org/10.1080/01490419809388141
Abstract
This article compares four sets of altimeter‐derived gravity anomalies in the Gulf of California region (22°N to 32°N, 244° E to 255°E) to anomalies from the EGM96 geopotential model and ship gravity data. Three anomaly sets were calculated using the same basic altimeter data (Ceosat geodetic mission data and the two cycles of ERS‐1, 168‐day repeat track) while one, by Hwang, Kao, and Parsons (HKP 1998), incorporated additional data not used in the other computations. The three sets using the same date were calculated by Knudsen and Andersen (KA 1997), Andersen and Knudsen (AK 1998), and Sandwell and Smith (SS 1997). Using a 1/8° × 1/8° grid of points, the mean difference between the altimeter anomalies and the degree 360 EGM96 geopotential model was computed in deep‐ and shallow‐water areas. The differences found reflect the different reference models used in the anomaly recovery process. Comparisons were also made with NIMA‐evaluated ship data, whose average accuracy was on the order of ±10 mgal. The comparisons were done with both shallow (—100 < d < —600 m) and deep (d < —2,000 m)‐waler data points. Comparisons were always better with the deep‐water points [for the AK set: ±7.0 mgal (deep water) versus ±11.1 mgal (shallow water)]. In all comparisons made, the AK set gave the best agreement with the ship data [e.g., ±9.7 mgal (AK), ±11.4 mgal (HKP), ±12.1 mgal(SS), ±10.9 mgal (KA)). The improved AK, over the KA set, reflects the use of the EGM96 model in the AK prediction while the KA set used the OSU91A model. Contour plots of the differences between the altimeter‐derived anomalies and ship data reveal some large differences near coastal regions, with the smallest differences found with the A K values. The causes of the various differences found can be associated with geophysical corrections to the altimeter data, altimeter data editing, data gridding procedure, and anomaly recovery methods.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Global marine gravity field from the ERS‐1 and Geosat geodetic mission altimetryJournal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 1998
- Marine gravity anomaly from Geosat and ERS 1 satellite altimetryJournal of Geophysical Research, 1997
- Antarctic Tectonics: Constraints From an ERS-1 Satellite Marine Gravity FieldScience, 1997
- Viewing the morphology of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge from a new perspectiveEos, 1997
- The Joint Gravity Model 3Journal of Geophysical Research, 1996
- Resolution of the Scripps/NOAA Marine Gravity Field from satellite altimetryGeophysical Research Letters, 1996
- Intercomparison of recent ocean tide modelsJournal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 1995
- Gravity anomalies from satellite altimetry: comparison between computation via geoid heights and via deflections of the verticalJournal of Geodesy, 1995
- Comparison of along‐track resolution of stacked Geosat, ERS 1, and TOPEX satellite altimetersJournal of Geophysical Research, 1995
- Dynamic Topography Estimates UsingGeosatData and A Gravimetric Geoid In the Gulf Stream RegionGeophysical Journal International, 1994