Global mass flux solutions from GRACE: A comparison of parameter estimation strategies-Mass concentrations versus Stokes coefficients
The differences between mass concentration (mas con) parameters and standard Stokes coefficient parameters in the recovery of gravity infonnation from gravity recovery and climate experiment (GRACE) intersatellite K-band range rate data are investigated. First, mascons are decomposed into their Stok...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of Geophysical Research 2010-01, Vol.115 (B1), p.n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | n/a |
---|---|
container_issue | B1 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Journal of Geophysical Research |
container_volume | 115 |
creator | Rowlands, D. D. Luthcke, S. B. McCarthy, J. J. Klosko, S. M. Chinn, D. S. Lemoine, F. G. Boy, J.-P. Sabaka, T. J. |
description | The differences between mass concentration (mas con) parameters and standard Stokes coefficient parameters in the recovery of gravity infonnation from gravity recovery and climate experiment (GRACE) intersatellite K-band range rate data are investigated. First, mascons are decomposed into their Stokes coefficient representations to gauge the range of solutions available using each of the two types of parameters. Next, a direct comparison is made between two time series of unconstrained gravity solutions, one based on a set of global equal area mascon parameters (equivalent to 4deg x 4deg at the equator), and the other based on standard Stokes coefficients with each time series using the same fundamental processing of the GRACE tracking data. It is shown that in unconstrained solutions, the type of gravity parameter being estimated does not qualitatively affect the estimated gravity field. It is also shown that many of the differences in mass flux derivations from GRACE gravity solutions arise from the type of smoothing being used and that the type of smoothing that can be embedded in mas con solutions has distinct advantages over postsolution smoothing. Finally, a 1 year time series based on global 2deg equal area mascons estimated every 10 days is presented. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1029/2009JB006546 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_787059098</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>36380837</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a5584-af33f5fdf9719abe07d72b4c61bb3abeed1b9701cc3c3554c2c056648eebbf553</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUtv1DAURiMEEqPSHUsWFhKwIXD9TMJuOmoDw_AqIJaW47FR2iQefJM-fgD_G4epKsSi3vhxz3dk-2bZYwqvKLDqNQOo1kcASgp1L1swKlXOGLD72QKoKHNgrHiYHSKeQRpCKgF0kf2uu9CYjvQGkfhuuiIYumlsw5C2MfSkPl2ujt-QJbGh35nYYhhI8CQtTe9GF4nDse3NnCA4RjO6n63D_MPss2GwbpgP__ouXMQJydcxnLu56LxvbZsAfJQ98KZDd3gzH2TfT46_rd7mm0_1u9VykxspS5Ebz7mXfuurglamcVBsC9YIq2jT8LR3W9pUBVBrueVSCsssSKVE6VzTeCn5QfZi793F8GtKN9d9i9Z1nRlcmFAXZQGygqpM5PM7Sa54CSUvEvj0P_AsTHFIr9CloklVKpWgl3vIxoAYnde7mD4tXmsKeu6e_rd7CX924zRoTeejGWyLtxnGJIhKVonje-6y7dz1nU69rk-PqGJUpNSTfWowaHRqDyaSUgDKRTmX8325xdFd3UpNPNeq4IXUPz7Wer05-bz6sn6vN_wPf_bBqA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>861098866</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Global mass flux solutions from GRACE: A comparison of parameter estimation strategies-Mass concentrations versus Stokes coefficients</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Journals</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library</source><source>Wiley Free Archive</source><source>NASA Technical Reports Server</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Rowlands, D. D. ; Luthcke, S. B. ; McCarthy, J. J. ; Klosko, S. M. ; Chinn, D. S. ; Lemoine, F. G. ; Boy, J.-P. ; Sabaka, T. J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rowlands, D. D. ; Luthcke, S. B. ; McCarthy, J. J. ; Klosko, S. M. ; Chinn, D. S. ; Lemoine, F. G. ; Boy, J.-P. ; Sabaka, T. J.</creatorcontrib><description>The differences between mass concentration (mas con) parameters and standard Stokes coefficient parameters in the recovery of gravity infonnation from gravity recovery and climate experiment (GRACE) intersatellite K-band range rate data are investigated. First, mascons are decomposed into their Stokes coefficient representations to gauge the range of solutions available using each of the two types of parameters. Next, a direct comparison is made between two time series of unconstrained gravity solutions, one based on a set of global equal area mascon parameters (equivalent to 4deg x 4deg at the equator), and the other based on standard Stokes coefficients with each time series using the same fundamental processing of the GRACE tracking data. It is shown that in unconstrained solutions, the type of gravity parameter being estimated does not qualitatively affect the estimated gravity field. It is also shown that many of the differences in mass flux derivations from GRACE gravity solutions arise from the type of smoothing being used and that the type of smoothing that can be embedded in mas con solutions has distinct advantages over postsolution smoothing. Finally, a 1 year time series based on global 2deg equal area mascons estimated every 10 days is presented.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0148-0227</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 2169-9313</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2156-2202</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2169-9356</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/2009JB006546</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Goddard Space Flight Center: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Earth sciences ; Earth, ocean, space ; Exact sciences and technology ; Fluid flow ; Flux ; Geodetics ; Geophysics ; global time variable gravity ; GRACE (experiment) ; Gravitation ; Gravity ; Mascons ; Smoothing ; Time series</subject><ispartof>Journal of Geophysical Research, 2010-01, Vol.115 (B1), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2010 by the American Geophysical Union.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright 2010 by American Geophysical Union</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a5584-af33f5fdf9719abe07d72b4c61bb3abeed1b9701cc3c3554c2c056648eebbf553</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a5584-af33f5fdf9719abe07d72b4c61bb3abeed1b9701cc3c3554c2c056648eebbf553</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029%2F2009JB006546$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F2009JB006546$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,1418,1434,11519,27929,27930,45579,45580,46414,46473,46838,46897</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=22504959$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rowlands, D. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luthcke, S. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCarthy, J. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klosko, S. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chinn, D. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lemoine, F. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boy, J.-P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sabaka, T. J.</creatorcontrib><title>Global mass flux solutions from GRACE: A comparison of parameter estimation strategies-Mass concentrations versus Stokes coefficients</title><title>Journal of Geophysical Research</title><addtitle>J. Geophys. Res</addtitle><description>The differences between mass concentration (mas con) parameters and standard Stokes coefficient parameters in the recovery of gravity infonnation from gravity recovery and climate experiment (GRACE) intersatellite K-band range rate data are investigated. First, mascons are decomposed into their Stokes coefficient representations to gauge the range of solutions available using each of the two types of parameters. Next, a direct comparison is made between two time series of unconstrained gravity solutions, one based on a set of global equal area mascon parameters (equivalent to 4deg x 4deg at the equator), and the other based on standard Stokes coefficients with each time series using the same fundamental processing of the GRACE tracking data. It is shown that in unconstrained solutions, the type of gravity parameter being estimated does not qualitatively affect the estimated gravity field. It is also shown that many of the differences in mass flux derivations from GRACE gravity solutions arise from the type of smoothing being used and that the type of smoothing that can be embedded in mas con solutions has distinct advantages over postsolution smoothing. Finally, a 1 year time series based on global 2deg equal area mascons estimated every 10 days is presented.</description><subject>Earth sciences</subject><subject>Earth, ocean, space</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>Fluid flow</subject><subject>Flux</subject><subject>Geodetics</subject><subject>Geophysics</subject><subject>global time variable gravity</subject><subject>GRACE (experiment)</subject><subject>Gravitation</subject><subject>Gravity</subject><subject>Mascons</subject><subject>Smoothing</subject><subject>Time series</subject><issn>0148-0227</issn><issn>2169-9313</issn><issn>2156-2202</issn><issn>2169-9356</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>CYI</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUtv1DAURiMEEqPSHUsWFhKwIXD9TMJuOmoDw_AqIJaW47FR2iQefJM-fgD_G4epKsSi3vhxz3dk-2bZYwqvKLDqNQOo1kcASgp1L1swKlXOGLD72QKoKHNgrHiYHSKeQRpCKgF0kf2uu9CYjvQGkfhuuiIYumlsw5C2MfSkPl2ujt-QJbGh35nYYhhI8CQtTe9GF4nDse3NnCA4RjO6n63D_MPss2GwbpgP__ouXMQJydcxnLu56LxvbZsAfJQ98KZDd3gzH2TfT46_rd7mm0_1u9VykxspS5Ebz7mXfuurglamcVBsC9YIq2jT8LR3W9pUBVBrueVSCsssSKVE6VzTeCn5QfZi793F8GtKN9d9i9Z1nRlcmFAXZQGygqpM5PM7Sa54CSUvEvj0P_AsTHFIr9CloklVKpWgl3vIxoAYnde7mD4tXmsKeu6e_rd7CX924zRoTeejGWyLtxnGJIhKVonje-6y7dz1nU69rk-PqGJUpNSTfWowaHRqDyaSUgDKRTmX8325xdFd3UpNPNeq4IXUPz7Wer05-bz6sn6vN_wPf_bBqA</recordid><startdate>201001</startdate><enddate>201001</enddate><creator>Rowlands, D. D.</creator><creator>Luthcke, S. B.</creator><creator>McCarthy, J. J.</creator><creator>Klosko, S. M.</creator><creator>Chinn, D. S.</creator><creator>Lemoine, F. G.</creator><creator>Boy, J.-P.</creator><creator>Sabaka, T. J.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>American Geophysical Union</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CYE</scope><scope>CYI</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7SM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201001</creationdate><title>Global mass flux solutions from GRACE: A comparison of parameter estimation strategies-Mass concentrations versus Stokes coefficients</title><author>Rowlands, D. D. ; Luthcke, S. B. ; McCarthy, J. J. ; Klosko, S. M. ; Chinn, D. S. ; Lemoine, F. G. ; Boy, J.-P. ; Sabaka, T. J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a5584-af33f5fdf9719abe07d72b4c61bb3abeed1b9701cc3c3554c2c056648eebbf553</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Earth sciences</topic><topic>Earth, ocean, space</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>Fluid flow</topic><topic>Flux</topic><topic>Geodetics</topic><topic>Geophysics</topic><topic>global time variable gravity</topic><topic>GRACE (experiment)</topic><topic>Gravitation</topic><topic>Gravity</topic><topic>Mascons</topic><topic>Smoothing</topic><topic>Time series</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rowlands, D. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luthcke, S. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCarthy, J. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klosko, S. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chinn, D. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lemoine, F. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boy, J.-P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sabaka, T. J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>NASA Scientific and Technical Information</collection><collection>NASA Technical Reports Server</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Earthquake Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of Geophysical Research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rowlands, D. D.</au><au>Luthcke, S. B.</au><au>McCarthy, J. J.</au><au>Klosko, S. M.</au><au>Chinn, D. S.</au><au>Lemoine, F. G.</au><au>Boy, J.-P.</au><au>Sabaka, T. J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Global mass flux solutions from GRACE: A comparison of parameter estimation strategies-Mass concentrations versus Stokes coefficients</atitle><jtitle>Journal of Geophysical Research</jtitle><addtitle>J. Geophys. Res</addtitle><date>2010-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>115</volume><issue>B1</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>0148-0227</issn><issn>2169-9313</issn><eissn>2156-2202</eissn><eissn>2169-9356</eissn><abstract>The differences between mass concentration (mas con) parameters and standard Stokes coefficient parameters in the recovery of gravity infonnation from gravity recovery and climate experiment (GRACE) intersatellite K-band range rate data are investigated. First, mascons are decomposed into their Stokes coefficient representations to gauge the range of solutions available using each of the two types of parameters. Next, a direct comparison is made between two time series of unconstrained gravity solutions, one based on a set of global equal area mascon parameters (equivalent to 4deg x 4deg at the equator), and the other based on standard Stokes coefficients with each time series using the same fundamental processing of the GRACE tracking data. It is shown that in unconstrained solutions, the type of gravity parameter being estimated does not qualitatively affect the estimated gravity field. It is also shown that many of the differences in mass flux derivations from GRACE gravity solutions arise from the type of smoothing being used and that the type of smoothing that can be embedded in mas con solutions has distinct advantages over postsolution smoothing. Finally, a 1 year time series based on global 2deg equal area mascons estimated every 10 days is presented.</abstract><cop>Goddard Space Flight Center</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1029/2009JB006546</doi><tpages>19</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0148-0227 |
ispartof | Journal of Geophysical Research, 2010-01, Vol.115 (B1), p.n/a |
issn | 0148-0227 2169-9313 2156-2202 2169-9356 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_787059098 |
source | Wiley-Blackwell Journals; Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library; Wiley Free Archive; NASA Technical Reports Server; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Earth sciences Earth, ocean, space Exact sciences and technology Fluid flow Flux Geodetics Geophysics global time variable gravity GRACE (experiment) Gravitation Gravity Mascons Smoothing Time series |
title | Global mass flux solutions from GRACE: A comparison of parameter estimation strategies-Mass concentrations versus Stokes coefficients |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-13T18%3A21%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Global%20mass%20flux%20solutions%20from%20GRACE:%20A%20comparison%20of%20parameter%20estimation%20strategies-Mass%20concentrations%20versus%20Stokes%20coefficients&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20Geophysical%20Research&rft.au=Rowlands,%20D.%20D.&rft.date=2010-01&rft.volume=115&rft.issue=B1&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=0148-0227&rft.eissn=2156-2202&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/2009JB006546&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E36380837%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=861098866&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |