1887
Volume 72, Issue 8
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

Several satellite gravity anomaly models are freely available to calculate the free‐air gravity anomaly in areas where shipborne gravity measurements are scarce. Two models produced by the Technical University of Denmark (DTU17) and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIOv32.1), respectively, were selected to compute the free‐air anomalies over the Cosmonaut Sea, East Antarctica. A statistical comparison analysis was performed to evaluate the resolution of satellite gravity anomaly models by comparing them with the shipborne surveying date. The radially averaged energy spectra of free‐air anomaly from different sources were calculated and compared over two selected regions to further evaluate the reliability of the data derived from satellite gravity anomaly models. The satellite gravity anomaly models have a better resolution in the ocean basin than in the area near the continental shelf. The comparison analysis revealed that the precision of both DTU17 and SIOv32.1 is close to the shipborne gravity data, but on average, SIOv32.1 is a little bit better than DTU17. The spectral analysis showed that the shipborne measurements may provide higher resolution than the satellite gravity anomaly model at wavelengths shorter than 20 km, and the free‐air data derived from SIOv32.1 have better resolution than the one from DTU17. These shipborne datasets will provide contributions for the updates of the Antarctic gravity anomaly and enable new high‐resolution combined Earth gravity models to be derived in Antarctica.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13577
2024-09-15
2026-02-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abdallah, M., Abd El Ghany, R., Rabah, M. & Zaki, A. (2022) Comparison of recently released satellite altimetric gravity models with shipborne gravity over the Red Sea. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science, 25(2), 579–592.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Andersen, O.B. (2013) Marine gravity and geoid from satellite altimetry. In: Sansò, F. & Sideris, M.G. (Eds.) Geoid determination: theory and methods. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 401–451.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Andersen, O.B. & Hinderer, J. (2005) Global inter‐annual gravity changes from GRACE: early results. Geophysical Research Letters, 32(1), L01402.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Andersen, O.B. & Knudsen, P. (1995) Global altimetric gravity map from the ERS‐1 geodetic mission (cycle 1). Earth Observation Quarterly, 47, 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Andersen, O.B. & Knudsen, P. (1998) Global marine gravity field from the ERS‐1 and Geosat geodetic mission altimetry. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 103(C4), 8129–8137.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Andersen, O.B. & Knudsen, P. (2009) DNSC08 mean sea surface and mean dynamic topography models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 114(C11), 327–432.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Andersen, O.B. & Knudsen, P. (2019) The DTU17 global marine gravity field: first validation results. In: Mertikas, S.P. & Pail, R. (Eds.) Fiducial reference measurements for altimetry, International Association of Geodesy Symposia. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG, p. 150.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Andersen, O.B., Knudsen, P. & Berry, P.A.M. (2010) The DNSC08GRA global marine gravity field from double retracked satellite altimetry. Journal of Geodesy, 84(3), 191–199.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Barzaghi, R. (2016) The remove‐restore method. In: Grafarend, E. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of geodesy. Cham: Springer, pp. 1–4.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bell, R.E. & Watts, A. (1986) Evaluation of the BGM‐3 sea gravity meter system onboard R/V Conrad. Geophysics, 51(7), 1480–1493.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dehlinger, P. (1978) Gravity reductions, corrections, and anomalies. In: Dehlinger, P. (Ed.) Marine gravity, vol. 22. Elsevier Oceanography Series. New York: Elsevier, pp. 135–164.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fairhead, J.D. (2016) Advances in gravity and magnetic processing and interpretation. Utrecht, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fairhead, J.D., Green, C.M. & Odegard, M.E. (2001) Satellite‐derived gravity having an impact on marine exploration. The Leading Edge, 20(8), 873–876.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Featherstone, W.E. (2002) Comparison of different satellite altimeter‐derived gravity anomaly grids with ship‐borne gravity data around Australia. Gravity and Geoid, 326–331.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Foerste, C., Bruinsma, S.L., Abrykosov, O., Lemoine, J.‐M., Marty, J.C., Flechtner, F., Balmino, G., Barthelmes, F. & Biancale, R. (2014) EIGEN‐6C4 The latest combined global gravity field model including GOCE data up to degree and order 2190 of GFZ Potsdam and GRGS Toulouse. GFZ Data Services, 10(10.5880).
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Forsbergbi, R., Olesen, A.V., Alshamsi, A., Gidskehaug, A., Ses, S. et al. (2012) Airborne gravimetry survey for the marine area of the United Arab Emirates. Marine Geodesy, 35(3), 221–232.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Green, C.M., Fletcher, K., Cheyney, S., Dawson, G.J. & Campbell, S.J. (2019) Satellite gravity—enhancements from new satellites and new altimeter technology. Geophysical Prospecting, 67(6), 1611–1619.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hwang, C. & Chang, E. (2014) Geophysics. Seafloor secrets revealed. Science (New York, N.Y.), 346(6205), 32–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. International Altimetry Team . (2021) Altimetry for the future: building on 25 years of progress. Advances in Space Research, 68, 319–363.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Janssen, V. (2009) Understanding coordinate reference systems, datums and transformations. International Journal of Geoinformatics, 5(4), 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Joseph, K., Loudi, Y., Sévérin, N., Ludovic, K.H., Gautier, K.P. & Alain, Z.A. (2021) Evaluation of global gravity field models using shipborne free‐air gravity anomalies over the Gulf of Guinea, Central Africa. Survey Review, 54(384), 243–253.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kamto, P.G., Yap, L., Nguiya, S., Kandé, L.H. & Kamguia, J. (2022) Evaluation of latest marine gravity field models derived from satellite altimetry over the Gulf of Guinea (Central Africa) with shipborne gravity data. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica, 66(1–2), 23–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Keating, P. & Pinet, N. (2013) Comparison of surface and shipborne gravity data with satellite‐altimeter gravity data in Hudson Bay. The Leading Edge, 32(4), 936–941.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kumar, M. (1988) World geodetic system 1984: a modern and accurate global reference frame. Marine Geodesy, 12(2), 117–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lee, D.H. & Acharya, T.D. (2017) Comparison of complete bouguer anomalies from satellite marine gravity models with shipborne gravity data in East Sea, Korea. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 25(6), 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Li, Q., Bao, L. & Wang, Y. (2021) Accuracy evaluation of altimeter‐derived gravity field models in offshore and coastal regions of China. Frontiers in Earth Science, 9, 722019.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ling, Z., Zhao, L., Zhang, T., Zhai, G. & Yang, F. (2022) Comparison of marine gravity measurements from shipborne and satellite altimetry in the Arctic Ocean. Remote Sensing, 14(1), 41.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lowrie & William (2007) Fundamentals of geophysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Moritz, H. (1980) Geodetic reference system 1980. Bulletin Géodésique, 54(3), 395–405.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mosher, D.C., Chapman, C.B., Shimeld, J., Jackson, H.R., Chian, D. & Verhoef, J. (2013) High Arctic marine geophysical data acquisition. The Leading Edge, 32(5), 524–536.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Neumann, G.A., Forsyth, D.W. & Sandwell, D. (1993) Comparison of marine gravity from shipboard and high‐density satellite altimetry along the Mid‐Atlantic Ridge, 30.5°–35.5°S. Geophysical Research Letters, 20(15), 1639–1642.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Pavlis, N.K., Holmes, S.A., Kenyon, S.C. & Factor, J.K. (2008) An Earth gravitational model to degree 2160: EGM2008. In: 57th EAGE Conference and Exhibition (pp. cp–90). European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
  33. Rapp, R.H. (1998) Comparison of altimeter‐derived and ship gravity anomalies in the vicinity of the Gulf of California. Marine Geodesy, 21(4), 245–259.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Sandwell, D., Garcia, E., Soofi, K., Wessel, P., Chandler, M. & Smith, W.H.F. (2013) Toward 1‐mGal accuracy in global marine gravity from CryoSat‐2, Envisat, and Jason‐1. The Leading Edge, 32, 892–899.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Sandwell, D.T., Harper, H., Tozer, B. & Smith, W.H.F. (2021) Gravity field recovery from geodetic altimeter missions. Advances in Space Research, 68(2), 1059–1072.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Sandwell, D.T., Mueller, R.D., Smith, W.H.F., Garcia, E. & Francis, R. (2014) New global marine gravity model from CryoSat‐2 and Jason‐1 reveals buried tectonic structure. Science (New York, N.Y.), 346(6205), 65–67.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Sandwell, D.T. & Smith, W.H. (1997) Marine gravity anomaly from Geosat and ERS 1 satellite altimetry. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 102(B5), 10039–10054.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Scheinert, M., Ferraccioli, F., Schwabe, J., Bell, R., Studinger, M., Damaske, D. et al. (2016) New Antarctic gravity anomaly grid for enhanced geodetic and geophysical studies in Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters, 43(2), 600–610.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Schwabe, J. & Scheinert, M. (2014) Regional geoid of the Weddell Sea, Antarctica, from heterogeneous ground‐based gravity data. Journal of Geodesy, 88(9), 821–838.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Slater, J.A. & Malys, S. (1998) WGS 84 – past, present and future. In: Brunner, F.K. (Ed.) Advances in positioning and reference frames. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer‐Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Small, C. & Sandwell, D.T. (1992) A comparison of satellite and shipboard gravity measurements in the Gulf of Mexico. Geophysics, 57(7), 885–893.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Smith, I.F., Dabek, Z.K. & Jolly, G.W. (1995) A comparison between sea‐surface and satellite‐derived gravity anomalies on the UK continental shelf. In: Proceedings EAGE Meeting 1995.
  43. Smith, W.H.F. (1993) On the accuracy of digital bathymetric data. Journal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth, 98(B6), 9591–9603.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Wessel, P. (2010) Tools for analyzing intersecting tracks: the x2sys package. Computers & Geosciences, 36(3), 348–354.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Wessel, P. & Smith, W.H.F. (1991) Free software helps map and display data. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 72, 441–446.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Yale, M.M. & Sandwell, D.T. (1999) Stacked global satellite gravity profiles. Geophysics, 64(6), 1748–1755.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Yale, M.M., Sandwell, D.T. & Herring, A.T. (1998) What are the limitations of satellite altimetry?The Leading Edge, 17(1), 73–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Yu, D., Hwang, C., Andersen, O.B., Chang, E.T.Y. & Gaultier, L. (2021) Gravity recovery from SWOT altimetry using geoid height and geoid gradient. Remote Sensing of Environment, 265, 112650.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Zaki, A., Mansi, A.H., Selim, M., Rabah, M. & El‐Fiky, G. (2018) Comparison of satellite altimetric gravity and global geopotential models with shipborne gravity in the Red Sea. Marine geodesy, 41(3), 258–269.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Zampa, L., Lodolo, E., Creati, N., Busetti, M., Madrussani, G., Forlin, E. et al. (2022) A comparison between sea‐bottom gravity and satellite altimeter‐derived gravity in coastal environments: a case study of the Gulf of Manfredonia (SW Adriatic Sea). Earth and Space Science, 9(6), e2020EA001572.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Zhang, W., Hao, W., Zheng, C., Ye, M., Yan, J. & Li, F. (2023) An improved altimeter‐derived gravity anomaly from shipborne gravity based on the mean sea surface height constraint factors method. Advances in Space Research, 71(6), 2909–2923.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Zingerle, P., Pail, R., Gruber, T. & Oikonomidou, X. (2020) The combined global gravity field model XGM2019e. Journal of Geodesy, 94(7), 66.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13577
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.13577
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error