2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.jog.2020.101753
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Formal error assessment of geodetic mean dynamic topography at different spatial scales

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The spatial resolution of sea surface height based on satellite altimetry data is about 20 − 30km, and that of geoid based on satellite gravity field is about 100 − 150km. The computational error in the geostrophic current due to measurement errors in sea surface height and geoid is about 5 − 20cm/s on a spatial scale of 100 − 150km [46], [47]. Due to the difficulty of obtaining a fine geostrophic current map that match the spatial resolution of the HF radar (2.5km), this article approximates that the geostrophic currents are consistent throughout the experimental sea area.…”
Section: Geostrophic Current Estimationmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…The spatial resolution of sea surface height based on satellite altimetry data is about 20 − 30km, and that of geoid based on satellite gravity field is about 100 − 150km. The computational error in the geostrophic current due to measurement errors in sea surface height and geoid is about 5 − 20cm/s on a spatial scale of 100 − 150km [46], [47]. Due to the difficulty of obtaining a fine geostrophic current map that match the spatial resolution of the HF radar (2.5km), this article approximates that the geostrophic currents are consistent throughout the experimental sea area.…”
Section: Geostrophic Current Estimationmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…On the other hand, the error models of MSS and GGM could help to evaluate the formal errors of the MDT. However, the evaluation of the error characteristic of the MDT would still be hampered due to the filtering procedure; hence, methods that could evaluate errors of the MDT are presented in some studies (Bingham et al, 2014;Bai et al, 2020). For instance, Rio et al (2011)and Rio et al (2014) introduced an objective analysis method considering the variance-covariance and the correlation between observations for MDT modeling, which helps suppress the noise level in the MDT solution.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%