Upload
cullen-hutchinson
View
29
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Reprocessing GPS data. at the observation level. for tide gauge monitoring:. Main “ raison d’être ” of TIGA. G. Wöppelmann, Tilo Schöne. IGS Analysis Center Workshop 2008, 2-6 June 2008, Miami Beach, Florida, USA. Overview. I. What are the sea-level applications requirements? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Reprocessing GPS dataat the observation level
for tide gauge monitoring:
G. Wöppelmann, Tilo Schöne
IGS Analysis Center Workshop 2008, 2-6 June 2008, Miami Beach, Florida, USA
Main “raison d’être” of TIGA
I. What are the sea-level applications requirements?
II. The TIGA Pilot Project
III. An example: Reprocessing Strategy at ULR
IV. Some important issues to do with cGPS@TG
V. Outlooks
Overview
IPCC (2007)
1.1 mm/yr
1.8 mm/yr
IPCC (2001)
Sum of climatic contributions to sea level rise: ~0.7mm/yr
“Sea-level enigma” (Munk 2002)
Analyses of tide gauge records ~1.5mm/yr
I. Long term sea level trends
WRCP Workshop in 2006 Reducing uncertainties in past and present sea level rise…
Vertical land motion at tide gauges→ Stockholm : Post-glacial rebound→ Nezugaseki : 1964 earthquake→ Bangkok : Ground water pumping→ Manila : Sedimentation
“Important issues to do with long term sea level trends” (e.g. Woodworth 2006, in Phil. Trans. R. Soc.)
Motivation for GPS reprocessing→ To use the best available data and
most accurate models to reduce errors in the estimates of coordinates
→ To use them all over the data span (models, parameterization…) in order to derive consistent sets of station coordinates, and to limit spurious signals in their time series
Challenges→ Rates in sea-level change: ~1-2 mm/yr→ Standard errors several times smaller
to be useful in these studies!
(Glacial isostatic adjustment)(Glacial isostatic adjustment)
(Co-seismic displacement)(Co-seismic displacement)
(Groundwater extraction)(Groundwater extraction)
(Sedimentation)(Sedimentation)
(No evidence of land motion)(No evidence of land motion)
4 closest passes to the tide gauge (Ǿ<160km) Closest points to the tide gauges over each pass, with valid SLA content: 70% of valid values w.r.t. the total # of cycles
Altimetric data
Tide gauge data
Time series > 2 years Interpolation at the epoch of altimetric pass
Data editing (Mitchum 2000)
I… Radar altimetry calibration
Minimum correlation: 0.3 (SLA Alt / TG) Maximum RMS differnces: 100mm
“Tide Gauge Benchmark Monitoring” 103 TOS, 2 TDC, 6 TAC, TAAC (?)
Goals Establish, maintain and expand a global
cGPS@TG network Compute precise station parameters for the
cGPS@TG stations with a high latency Reprocess all previously collected GPS data,
if possible back to 1993 Promote the establishment of links to other
geodetic sites (DORIS, SLR, VLBI,… AG)
(Initiated in 2001, on a best-effort basis)http://adsc.gfz-potsdam.de/tiga/index_TIGA.html
II. The TIGA pilot project
ETG
AUT
DGF
GFTCTA ULR
Total # of GPS stations: 225 IGS05 stations: 91 Time span: 1997.0 - 2006.9 205 time series > 3.5 years 160 are co-located with TG 90 CGPS@TG are not IGS
III. An example: ULR Analysis Centre
Parameter Description
GPS Software
Stations
Data
Sessions and sampling Elevation cut-off angle Ionosphere refraction Troposphere refraction Antenna PCV Earth orientation Earth and polar tide Ocean tide loading Station positions Orbits Reference Frame Combination strategy
GAMIT 10.21 (King and Bock 2006) for GPS observations processing
Grouping into five 50-stations global sub-networks (50-stations at most)
Double-differenced phase and code pseudo-range observations
24-hour sessions; 5 min. sampling interval (data cleaning: 30s) 10° Ionosphere-free linear combination LC (1st-order effect eliminated) A priori zenith delays from Saastamoinen (1973) model, using a standard atmosphere, mapped with the GMF mapping functions (Boehm et al. 2006); zenith wet delays estimated as a piece-wise linear model with 2-h nodes, plus gradients in north-south and east-west directions at 24-h intervals. IGS absolute phase centre corrections (Gendt 2005, IGSMAIL-5272) for both the tracking and transmitting antennas IERS bulletin B IERS2003 (Petit and McCarthy 2004). Computed using CSR4.0 ocean tide model and the facility provided by Scherneck and Bos (http://www.oso.chalmers.se/~loading/). Free network approach. A priori values either from ITRF2000 or ITRF2005 (according to the foreseen solution). Position constraints at 1 meter. Adjusted (relaxed orbit strategy). A priori values from IGS precise orbits. Orbit parameter constraints equivalent to ~20 cm. BERNE Radiation model. ITRF2005 datum, 86 out of the 91 IGb05 stations (see Figure 1). GOLD, JAB1, REYK, YAR1, MCM4, excluded due to large residuals. The global GPS sub-network solutions are combined into daily and weekly solutions, and aligned to the ITRF2005 using the minimum constraint approach implemented in the CATREF Software (Altamimi et al. 2004)
III… Reprocessing analysis strategy at ULR
Stacking of the weekly station coordinate solutions using Altamimi et al. (2002, 2007) approach published in JGR.
OUTPUTS
station positions and velocities at t0 (2001/346), as well as, time series of post-fit residuals (station coordinates), time series of transformation parameters, between each weekly solution and the final stacked one discontinuities estimates (iterative procedure to detect outliers and discontinuities)
III… GPS velocities at TG... How well do they work?
For details: Wöppelmann et al. Poster to be displayed Thursday… also, paper published in Global and Planetary Change (2007)
ICE5Gv1.2 + VM4 models(Peltier 2004)
GROUPS OF STATIONS TIDE GAUGES GPS/TG GPS TG+GPS GIA TG-GIA
NORTH SEA+ENG.CHANNEL Span (yr) Trend (mm/yr) Dist. (m) Span (yr) Trend (mm/yr) (mm/yr) (mm/yr) (mm/yr)ABERDEEN I+II 103 0.58 ± 0.10 2 6.7 0.15 ± 0.11 0.73 -0.77 1.35
NEWLYN 87 1.69 ± 0.11 10 6.7 -1.04 ± 0.15 0.65 0.20 1.49BREST 83 1.40 ± 0.05 350 6.7 -1.18 ± 0.12 0.22 0.18 1.22
ATLANTIC
CASCAIS 97 1.22 ± 0.10 84 6.7 -0.58 ± 0.12 0.64 0.03 1.19LAGOS 61 1.35 ± 0.18 138 5.3 -0.32 ± 0.12 1.03 0.09 1.26
MEDITERRANEAN
MARSEILLE 105 1.27 ± 0.09 5 6.7 -0.32 ± 0.22 0.95 -0.07 1.34GENOVA 78 1.20 ± 0.07 Unknown 6.6 -0.26 ± 0.12 0.94 -0.24 1.44
NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND II 85 1.30 ± 0.13 5 3.9 1.61 ± 0.28 2.91 -0.29 1.59LYTTELTON II 48 2.30 ± 0.21 2 5.8 1.21 ± 0.14 3.51 -0.34 2.64
PACIFIC
HONOLULU 99 1.46 ± 0.13 5 6.5 0.46 ± 0.17 1.92 -0.16 1.62
SW NORTH AMERICA
LA JOLLA 72 2.11 ± 0.16 700 6.7 -1.36 ± 0.24 0.75 0.09 2.02LOS ANGELES 78 0.86 ± 0.15 2200 6.7 -0.64 ± 0.11 0.22 0.07 0.79
SE NORTH AMERICA
CHARLESTON I 82 3.23 ± 0.16 7400 4.8 -1.80 ± 0.23 1.43 0.16 3.06FERNANDINA 83 2.00 ± 0.13 5500 6.7 -4.28 ± 0.13 -2.28 0.08 1.92
GALVESTON II 94 6.47 ± 0.17 4200 4.5 -6.85 ± 0.23 -0.38 0.19 6.28MIAMI BEACH 45 2.29 ± 0.26 300 5.2 0.92 ± 0.22 3.21 0.11 2.18
KEY WEST 90 2.23 ± 0.10 7800 6.7 -0.50 ± 0.16 1.73 0.16 2.07
NE NORTH AMERICA
EASTPORT 63 2.07 ± 0.16 100 6.2 1.39 ± 0.20 3.46 0.16 1.91NEWPORT 70 2.48 ± 0.14 1100 6.1 -0.18 ± 0.12 2.3 1.07 1.41HALIFAX 77 3.29 ± 0.11 3300 2.8 -1.57 ± 0.26 1.72 0.70 2.59
ANNAPOLIS 70 3.46 ± 0.17 Unknown 6.7 -0.12 ± 0.11 3.34 0.30 3.16SOLOMON'S ISL. 62 3.36 ± 0.19 100 6.7 -3.36 ± 0.35 0.00 0.18 3.18
NORTHERN EUROPE
STAVANGER 63 0.27 ± 0.17 16000 4.7 0.23 ± 0.13 0.50 -0.49 0.76
KOBENHAVN 101 0.32 ± 0.12 7300 2.6 -0.08 ± 0.25 0.24 0.31 0.01NEDRE GAVLE 90 -6.05 ± 0.23 11000 6.4 6.22 ± 0.10 0.17 -4.65 -1.40
NW NORTH AMERICA
VICTORIA 86 1.10 ± 0.15 2 6.7 0.68 ± 0.14 1.78 0.23 0.87NEAH BAY 65 -1.59 ± 0.22 7900 6.7 4.21 ± 0.13 2.62 0.56 -2.15SEATTLE 104 2.06 ± 0.11 5900 6.7 -0.57 ± 0.11 1.49 0.46 1.60
Table1 fromWöppelmann et al. 2007(Glob. Planet. Change)
1.28 ± 1.34 1.69 ± 1.491.56 ± 2.05
ITRF20001999.0-2005.7
6.7 years
GROUPS OF STATIONS GPS TG+GPS GIA TG-GIA GPS (AGU00) TG+GPS GPS (AGU05) TG+GPS
NORTH SEA+ENG.CHANNEL Span (yr) Trend (mm/yr) (mm/yr) (mm/yr) (mm/yr) Span (yr) Trend (mm/yr) (mm/yr) Trend (mm/yr) (mm/yr)ABERDEEN I+II 6.7 0.15 ± 0.11 0.73 -0.77 1.35 8.2 -0.10 ± 0.10 0.48 0.67 ± 0.04 1.25
NEWLYN 6.7 -1.04 ± 0.15 0.65 0.20 1.49 8.1 -0.90 ± 0.08 0.79 -0.21 ± 0.03 1.48BREST 6.7 -1.18 ± 0.12 0.22 0.18 1.22 8.0 -1.18 ± 0.09 0.22 -0.54 ± 0.04 0.86
ATLANTIC
CASCAIS 6.7 -0.58 ± 0.12 0.64 0.03 1.19 8.1 -0.37 ± 0.10 0.85 0.12 ± 0.04 1.34LAGOS 5.3 -0.32 ± 0.12 1.03 0.09 1.26 6.6 -0.59 ± 0.09 0.76 -0.10 ± 0.04 1.25
MEDITERRANEAN
MARSEILLE 6.7 -0.32 ± 0.22 0.95 -0.07 1.34 8.3 0.34 ± 0.13 1.61 0.82 ± 0.05 2.09GENOVA 6.6 -0.26 ± 0.12 0.94 -0.24 1.44 8.3 -0.61 ± 0.08 0.59 -0.16 ± 0.04 1.04
NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND II 3.9 1.61 ± 0.28 2.91 -0.29 1.59 5.3 1.47 ± 0.20 2.77 -0.87 ± 0.08 0.43LYTTELTON II 5.8 1.21 ± 0.14 3.51 -0.34 2.64 7.0 1.66 ± 0.11 3.96 -0.59 ± 0.05 1.71
PACIFIC
HONOLULU 6.5 0.46 ± 0.17 1.92 -0.16 1.62 8.6 0.12 ± 0.11 1.58 -0.15 ± 0.05 1.31
SW NORTH AMERICA
LA JOLLA 6.7 -1.36 ± 0.24 0.75 0.09 2.02 9.8 -0.75 ± 0.11 1.36 -0.38 ± 0.05 1.73LOS ANGELES 6.7 -0.64 ± 0.11 0.22 0.07 0.79 7.9 -0.67 ± 0.08 0.19 -0.30 ± 0.04 0.56
SE NORTH AMERICA
CHARLESTON I 4.8 -1.80 ± 0.23 1.43 0.16 3.06 6.9 -1.76 ± 0.14 1.47 -1.31 ± 0.06 1.92FERNANDINA 6.7 -4.28 ± 0.13 -2.28 0.08 1.92 9.4 -3.99 ± 0.1 -1.99 -3.58 ± 0.04 -1.58
GALVESTON II 4.5 -6.85 ± 0.23 -0.38 0.19 6.28 5.9 -6.30 ± 0.16 0.17 -5.89 ± 0.07 0.58MIAMI BEACH 5.2 0.92 ± 0.22 3.21 0.11 2.18 6.7 0.08 ± 0.13 2.37 0.46 ± 0.06 2.75
KEY WEST 6.7 -0.50 ± 0.16 1.73 0.16 2.07 9.4 -0.97 ± 0.11 1.26 -0.59 ± 0.05 1.64
NE NORTH AMERICA
EASTPORT 6.2 1.39 ± 0.20 3.46 0.16 1.91 8.1 1.48 ± 0.13 3.55 2.07 ± 0.06 4.14NEWPORT 6.1 -0.18 ± 0.12 2.3 1.07 1.41 7.3 -0.18 ± 0.09 2.3 0.42 ± 0.04 2.9HALIFAX 2.8 -1.57 ± 0.26 1.72 0.70 2.59 3.9 -1.5 ± 0.18 1.79 -0.72 ± 0.07 2.57
ANNAPOLIS 6.7 -0.12 ± 0.11 3.34 0.30 3.16 8.9 0.19 ± 0.08 3.65 0.69 ± 0.04 4.15SOLOMON'S ISL. 6.7 -3.36 ± 0.35 0.00 0.18 3.18 9.8 -2.92 ± 0.08 0.44 -2.43 ± 0.03 0.93
NORTHERN EUROPE
STAVANGER 4.7 0.23 ± 0.13 0.50 -0.49 0.76 6.0 1.81 ± 0.09 2.08 2.68 ± 0.04 2.95
KOBENHAVN 2.6 -0.08 ± 0.25 0.24 0.31 0.01 3.9 0.25 ± 0.16 0.57 0.97 ± 0.06 1.29NEDRE GAVLE 6.4 6.22 ± 0.10 0.17 -4.65 -1.40 7.7 6.46 ± 0.07 0.41 7.12 ± 0.03 1.07
NW NORTH AMERICA
VICTORIA 6.7 0.68 ± 0.14 1.78 0.23 0.87 9.8 0.65 ± 0.09 1.75 1.20 ± 0.04 2.30
NEAH BAY 6.7 4.21 ± 0.13 2.62 0.56 -2.15 8.8 3.28 ± 0.1 1.69 3.82 ± 0.04 2.23
SEATTLE 6.7 -0.57 ± 0.11 1.49 0.46 1.60 8.8 -0.42 ± 0.07 1.64 0.14 ± 0.03 2.20
Updated from ourrecent GPS re-analysis
1.28 ± 1.34 1.69 ± 1.49 1.37 ± 1.25 1.68 ± 1.15
Newuncertainties
Working hypotheses1. Land movements are linear over the tide gauge records length
2. GPS antenna vertical movement Tide gauge land movement
Some examples…
IV. Some important issues to do with cGPS@TG
Local land motion monitoring (stability) geodetic link between GPS antenna and TGBM ancillary local information (equipment changes, topography…)
specially, if the GPS was not installed for sea level studies!
Leadership issue raised at EGU 2008, Vienna.
IV… Assessing the quality of the GPS results
VERTICAL
-0.750.01
-0.640.01
75 GPS stations in common with > 200 weekly points over the 1997.0-2006.0 period Lomb-Scargle periodogram (Press et al. 2001) Normalized spectra stacked and filtered following Ray et al. (2008) approach
(annual and semi-annual fits have been removed prior to spectra computation)
Stacked periodograms for filtered GPS position time series
-0.480.01
-0.710.01
EAST
Stacked periodograms for filtered GPS position time series
IV… Assessing the quality of our GPS results
75 GPS stations in common with > 200 weekly points over the 1997.0-2006.0 period Lomb-Scargle periodogram (Press et al. 2001) Normalized spectra stacked and filtered following Ray et al. (2008) approach
(annual and semi-annual fits have been removed prior to spectra computation)
NORTH
-0.580.01
-0.700.01
Stacked periodograms for filtered GPS position time series
IV… Assessing the quality of our GPS results
Detection of anomalous harmonics… (Ray et al. 2008)
ITRF2000 versus ITRF2005Impact on the vertical velocities…
Which reference frame?
IV. Some important issues to do with cGPS@TG
TG+GPS (mm/yr) TG-GIA
Solution GPS 1ITRF2000
1999.0-2005.7
GPS 2 ITRF2000
1997.0-2006.9
GPS 3ITRF2005
1997.0-2006.9
Sea level trends scatter 1.34 1.25 1.15 1.49
Global Sea level trend 1.31±0.30 1.38±0.28 1.56±0.19 1.83±0.21
Summary of the long-term sea level trend study
Douglas & Peltier (2001): 1.840.35mm/yr
it05it00 )sin(8.1hh 00it05it
Impact on vertical velocities: using ITRF2005 datum or ITRF2000
)sin(8.1hh 00it05it
IV… ITRF2000 versus ITRF2005 datum
-0.1 ± 0.2
-0.3 ± 0.2
-0.8 ± 0.2
0.5 ± 0.2
-8.1 ± 0.2
-1.7 ± 0.2
0.89 ± 0.03
0.13 ± 0.03
-0.041±0.007
-0.004±0.007
0.023±0.007
-0.003±0.007
-0.052±0.008
-0.010±0.008
yr/mm,T
mm,T
x
x
yr/mm,T
mm,T
y
y
yr/mm,T
mm,T
z
z
yr/ppb,D
ppb,D
yr/mas,R
mas,R
x
x
yr/mas,R
mas,R
y
y
yr/mas,R
mas,R
z
z
Transformation parametersestimated from our GPS solutions (ITRF2005 → ITRF2000)
~ 0.83 mm/yr
IV… ITRF2000 versus ITRF2005 datum
GROUPS OF STATIONS GPS TG+GPS GIA TG-GIA GPS (AGU00) TG+GPS GPS (AGU05) TG+GPS
NORTH SEA+ENG.CHANNEL Span (yr) Trend (mm/yr) (mm/yr) (mm/yr) (mm/yr) Span (yr) Trend (mm/yr) (mm/yr) Trend (mm/yr) (mm/yr)ABERDEEN I+II 6.7 0.15 ± 0.11 0.73 -0.77 1.35 8.2 -0.10 ± 0.10 0.48 0.67 ± 0.04 1.25
NEWLYN 6.7 -1.04 ± 0.15 0.65 0.20 1.49 8.1 -0.90 ± 0.08 0.79 -0.21 ± 0.03 1.48BREST 6.7 -1.18 ± 0.12 0.22 0.18 1.22 8.0 -1.18 ± 0.09 0.22 -0.54 ± 0.04 0.86
ATLANTIC
CASCAIS 6.7 -0.58 ± 0.12 0.64 0.03 1.19 8.1 -0.37 ± 0.10 0.85 0.12 ± 0.04 1.34LAGOS 5.3 -0.32 ± 0.12 1.03 0.09 1.26 6.6 -0.59 ± 0.09 0.76 -0.10 ± 0.04 1.25
MEDITERRANEAN
MARSEILLE 6.7 -0.32 ± 0.22 0.95 -0.07 1.34 8.3 0.34 ± 0.13 1.61 0.82 ± 0.05 2.09GENOVA 6.6 -0.26 ± 0.12 0.94 -0.24 1.44 8.3 -0.61 ± 0.08 0.59 -0.16 ± 0.04 1.04
NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND II 3.9 1.61 ± 0.28 2.91 -0.29 1.59 5.3 1.47 ± 0.20 2.77 -0.87 ± 0.08 0.43LYTTELTON II 5.8 1.21 ± 0.14 3.51 -0.34 2.64 7.0 1.66 ± 0.11 3.96 -0.59 ± 0.05 1.71
PACIFIC
HONOLULU 6.5 0.46 ± 0.17 1.92 -0.16 1.62 8.6 0.12 ± 0.11 1.58 -0.15 ± 0.05 1.31
SW NORTH AMERICA
LA JOLLA 6.7 -1.36 ± 0.24 0.75 0.09 2.02 9.8 -0.75 ± 0.11 1.36 -0.38 ± 0.05 1.73LOS ANGELES 6.7 -0.64 ± 0.11 0.22 0.07 0.79 7.9 -0.67 ± 0.08 0.19 -0.30 ± 0.04 0.56
SE NORTH AMERICA
CHARLESTON I 4.8 -1.80 ± 0.23 1.43 0.16 3.06 6.9 -1.76 ± 0.14 1.47 -1.31 ± 0.06 1.92FERNANDINA 6.7 -4.28 ± 0.13 -2.28 0.08 1.92 9.4 -3.99 ± 0.1 -1.99 -3.58 ± 0.04 -1.58
GALVESTON II 4.5 -6.85 ± 0.23 -0.38 0.19 6.28 5.9 -6.30 ± 0.16 0.17 -5.89 ± 0.07 0.58MIAMI BEACH 5.2 0.92 ± 0.22 3.21 0.11 2.18 6.7 0.08 ± 0.13 2.37 0.46 ± 0.06 2.75
KEY WEST 6.7 -0.50 ± 0.16 1.73 0.16 2.07 9.4 -0.97 ± 0.11 1.26 -0.59 ± 0.05 1.64
NE NORTH AMERICA
EASTPORT 6.2 1.39 ± 0.20 3.46 0.16 1.91 8.1 1.48 ± 0.13 3.55 2.07 ± 0.06 4.14NEWPORT 6.1 -0.18 ± 0.12 2.3 1.07 1.41 7.3 -0.18 ± 0.09 2.3 0.42 ± 0.04 2.9HALIFAX 2.8 -1.57 ± 0.26 1.72 0.70 2.59 3.9 -1.5 ± 0.18 1.79 -0.72 ± 0.07 2.57
ANNAPOLIS 6.7 -0.12 ± 0.11 3.34 0.30 3.16 8.9 0.19 ± 0.08 3.65 0.69 ± 0.04 4.15SOLOMON'S ISL. 6.7 -3.36 ± 0.35 0.00 0.18 3.18 9.8 -2.92 ± 0.08 0.44 -2.43 ± 0.03 0.93
NORTHERN EUROPE
STAVANGER 4.7 0.23 ± 0.13 0.50 -0.49 0.76 6.0 1.81 ± 0.09 2.08 2.68 ± 0.04 2.95
KOBENHAVN 2.6 -0.08 ± 0.25 0.24 0.31 0.01 3.9 0.25 ± 0.16 0.57 0.97 ± 0.06 1.29NEDRE GAVLE 6.4 6.22 ± 0.10 0.17 -4.65 -1.40 7.7 6.46 ± 0.07 0.41 7.12 ± 0.03 1.07
NW NORTH AMERICA
VICTORIA 6.7 0.68 ± 0.14 1.78 0.23 0.87 9.8 0.65 ± 0.09 1.75 1.20 ± 0.04 2.30
NEAH BAY 6.7 4.21 ± 0.13 2.62 0.56 -2.15 8.8 3.28 ± 0.1 1.69 3.82 ± 0.04 2.23
SEATTLE 6.7 -0.57 ± 0.11 1.49 0.46 1.60 8.8 -0.42 ± 0.07 1.64 0.14 ± 0.03 2.20
IV… Vertical land motion to be interpreted
Inferred from PSMSL (2005)Inferred from PSMSL (2005)and Holgate & Woodworth (2004)and Holgate & Woodworth (2004)
Shennan & Horton (2002)Shennan & Horton (2002)
Promising scientific results Combined TIGA solution pending (provided soon…).
Reprocessing with absolute PCV ongoing Volunteers for combination analyses needed
Trying to secure long(er)-term funding for processing and combination So far best-effort basis
Efforts are needed for meta-data information (e.g. leveling between benchmarks and TG zero) Leadership issue…
Need for a more robust and stable ITRF Current accuracy: 1-2 mm/yr origin, 0.1 ppb/yr scale Target accuracy: 0.1 mm/yr origin, 0.01 ppb/yr scale
V. Conclusions and Outlooks
Current (103) and potential (300) cGPS@TG stations
Towards an improved reprocessing (VMF1,…)
Upgrade the reprocessing capabilities (1 year 1 week)
Potential for 300 cGPS@TGAccess to data and meta-dataClustering in populated areas
Thank you for your attention !
View of La Rochelle
d’après Altamimi et al. (2007)
Inputs :
Weekly solutions (…) X(ts) – SINEX files
(Each individual solution defines its own reference frame...)
Model :
Outputs :
Combined solution : positions Xitrf(t0), and velocities
Time series of transformation parameters between each individual solution and the combined one (Tx, Ty, Tz, D, Rx, Ry, Rz)
Time series of post-fit residuals (station coordinates…)
The reference frame is defined by applying minimal constraints
Model implemented in CATREF (Altamimi, 2004)
Stacking of weekly GPS solutions in SINEX format
iitrfk
iitrfkk
iitrf
is
iitrfk
iitrfkkk
is
iitrfk
iitrfkk
iitrf
is
iitrf
is
XRXDTXX
XRXDTtt
XRXDTXttXX
)(
)( 0
itrfX
Transformation parameters between each weekly solution and the
combined one expressed in ITRF2000 or ITRF2005
Many geophysical phenomena can be described using a power-law process of the form (Agnew, 1992):
: spectral index. = 0 White Noise (WN); =-1 Flicker Noise (FN); =-2, Random Walk Noise (RWN)
Methods: MLE, Maximum Likelihood Estimatione.g. Williams et al. (2003, 2004,…)
SPECTRAL ANALYSISe.g. Zhang et al. (1997), Mao et al. (1999)
ALLAN VARIANCE• Stability of atomic clocks, e.g. Allan (1966)• Method adapted to geodetic data,
e.g. Le-Bail (2006), Feissel-Vernier et al. (2007)
Noise in GPS position time series
)/()( 00 ffPfPx
23
232 2
TNx
r
VarianceAllan2x
timesamplingT
tsmeasuremenof#N
indexspectral
Motivation:Compute realistic uncertainties on GPS velocities. Zhang et al. (1997):
Very preliminary results… to be confirmed and further investigated
Comparable drifts for Jason-1, T/P and GFO missions
→ Drifts between 0.5 - 1.0 mm/yr without land motion correction
→ Drifts closer to 0 mm/yr with GPS-derived corrections from GPC solution.
Only Envisat still shows a significant drift
Other altimetry missions…
Without GPS-velocities corrections
With GPS-velocities corrections