Comparisons of atmospheric mass variations derived from ECMWF reanalysis and operational fields, over 2003–2011

Forootan, Ehsan; Didova, O.; Schumacher, Maike; Kusche, Jürgen; Elsaka, Basem

doi:10.1007/s00190-014-0696-x

Cited by 44 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, we recall that GRACE monthly mean gravity fields are corrected for short‐period atmospheric mass variations based on 6‐hourly atmospheric data from either operational analyses or reanalyses of the ECMWF [ Fagiolini et al , ; Forootan et al , ]. Other high‐frequency periodic signals, related, e.g., to solid Earth and ocean tides, are routinely removed from the GRACE sensor data by means of separate background models for each of the relevant frequencies, and one might proceed in a similar manner for lunar tidal variations in the atmosphere.…”

Section: Summary Remarksmentioning

confidence: 66%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A global ground truth view of the lunar air pressure tide L₂

Schindelegger

Dobslaw

2016

JGR Atmospheres

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comprehensive model of the lunar air pressure tide L 2 is developed on the basis of 2315 ground truth estimates from land barometers and moored buoys. Regional-scale features of the tide and its seasonal modulations are well resolved by the in situ scatter and gridded to a 2 ∘ mesh through multiquadric interpolation. The resulting climatologies serve as an independent standard to validate the lunar semidiurnal tidal signal that is present in ERA-Interim reanalysis products despite the absence of L 2 -related gravitational forcing mechanisms in the prescribed model physics. Inconsistencies between the reanalysis solution of the barometric lunar tide and its empirical account are generally small, yet when averaged over the period 1979-2010, ERA-Interim underestimates the 100 μbar open ocean tidal amplitude in the Tropics by up to 20 μbar and produces times of peak pressure that are too early by 10 lunar minutes. Large-amplitude features of the reanalysis tide off the coast of Alaska, the eastern U.S., and Great Britain are evidently spurious, introduced to the analysis system by assimilating marine pressure data at an invariant reference surface instead of properly accounting for vertical sensor movements associated with the M 2 ocean tide. Additionally, a credible L 2 signal is documented for the ERA-20C pilot reanalysis of the twentieth century. The fact that this model rests upon input data from mere surface observations provides an unambiguous indication that the lunar tidal oscillation in atmospheric analysis systems is closely tied to the assimilation of conventional pressure measurements from stations and marine objects.

show abstract

Section: Summary Remarksmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Moreover, we recall that GRACE monthly mean gravity fields are corrected for short-period atmospheric mass variations based on 6-hourly atmospheric data from either operational analyses or reanalyses of the ECMWF [Fagiolini et al, 2015;Forootan et al, 2014]. Other high-frequency periodic signals, related, e.g., to solid Earth…”

Section: Summary Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

A global ground truth view of the lunar air pressure tide L₂

Schindelegger

Dobslaw

2016

JGR Atmospheres

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, these regional comparisons show typical values of <25 mm, which appears to indicate the level of accuracy of GRACE solutions in terms of TWSA. While the estimation of GRACE errors could be improved by using the full covariance matrix 32 and errors in the background models, 33 a comparison of the GRACE measurements with true observations of the target quantity would be more interesting for validation purposes. However, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, there are no such in situ data for assessing GRACE-derived TWSA fields.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainties of the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment time-variable gravity-field solutions based on three-cornered hat method

Ferreira

Castro

Yakubu

et al. 2016

J. Appl. Remote Sens

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Currently, various satellite processing centers produce extensive data, with different solutions of the same field being available. For instance, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) has been monitoring terrestrial water storage (TWS) since April 2002, while the Center for Space Research (CSR), the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), the GeoForschungsZentrum (GFZ), and the Groupe de Recherche de Géodésie Spatiale (GRGS) provide individual monthly solutions in the form of Stokes coefficients. The inverted TWS maps (or the regionally averaged values) from these coefficients are being used in many applications; however, as no ground truth data exist, the uncertainties are unknown. Consequently, the purpose of this work is to assess the quality of each processing center by estimating their uncertainties using a generalized formulation of the three-cornered hat (TCH) method. Overall, the TCH results for the study period of August 2002 to June 2014 indicate that at a global scale, the CSR, GFZ, GRGS, and JPL presented uncertainties of 9.4, 13.7, 14.8, and 13.2 mm, respectively. At a basin scale, the overall good performance of the CSR was observed at 91 river basins. The TCH-based results were confirmed by a comparison with an ensemble solution from the four GRACE processing centers.

show abstract

“…They suggested using the more stable ERA-Interim data or a pre-processing strategy within the GRACE Science Data System (SDS) to correct for these biases. Forootan et al (2014) compared de-aliasing products based on operational and on ERA-Interim models, finding a considerable impact on linear trends and seasonal components of atmospheric masses. Local differences over Central Asia and Greenland reach up to ∼1 cm EWH.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correction of inconsistencies in ECMWF's operational analysis data during de-aliasing of GRACE gravity models

Fagiolini¹,

Flechtner²,

Horwath³

et al. 2015

Geophys. J. Int.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparisons of atmospheric mass variations derived from ECMWF reanalysis and operational fields, over 2003–2011

Cited by 44 publications

References 36 publications

A global ground truth view of the lunar air pressure tide L₂

A global ground truth view of the lunar air pressure tide L₂

Uncertainties of the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment time-variable gravity-field solutions based on three-cornered hat method

Correction of inconsistencies in ECMWF's operational analysis data during de-aliasing of GRACE gravity models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Comparisons of atmospheric mass variations derived from ECMWF reanalysis and operational fields, over 2003–2011

Cited by 44 publications

References 36 publications

A global ground truth view of the lunar air pressure tide L2

A global ground truth view of the lunar air pressure tide L2

Uncertainties of the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment time-variable gravity-field solutions based on three-cornered hat method

Correction of inconsistencies in ECMWF's operational analysis data during de-aliasing of GRACE gravity models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A global ground truth view of the lunar air pressure tide L₂

A global ground truth view of the lunar air pressure tide L₂