Loading…

Comparative analysis of different environmental loading methods and their impacts on the GPS height time series

Three different environmental loading methods are used to estimate surface displacements and correct non-linear variations in a set of GPS weekly height time series. Loading data are provided by (1) Global Geophysical Fluid Center (GGFC), (2) Loading Model of Quasi-Observation Combination Analysis s...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of geodesy 2013-07, Vol.87 (7), p.687-703
Main Authors: Jiang, Weiping, Li, Zhao, van Dam, Tonie, Ding, Wenwu
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c349t-6921fe8acb453c08b25fbaff4317521512613a64aea1dc7033c4bccc2970c0513
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c349t-6921fe8acb453c08b25fbaff4317521512613a64aea1dc7033c4bccc2970c0513
container_end_page 703
container_issue 7
container_start_page 687
container_title Journal of geodesy
container_volume 87
creator Jiang, Weiping
Li, Zhao
van Dam, Tonie
Ding, Wenwu
description Three different environmental loading methods are used to estimate surface displacements and correct non-linear variations in a set of GPS weekly height time series. Loading data are provided by (1) Global Geophysical Fluid Center (GGFC), (2) Loading Model of Quasi-Observation Combination Analysis software (QLM) and (3) our own daily loading time series (we call it OMD for optimum model data). We find that OMD has the smallest scatter in height across the selected 233 globally distributed GPS reference stations, GGFC has the next smallest variability, and QLM has the largest scatter. By removing the load-induced height changes from the GPS height time series, we are able to reduce the scatter on 74, 64 and 41 % of the stations using the OMD models, the GGFC model and QLM model respectively. We demonstrate that the discrepancy between the center of earth (CE) and the center of figure (CF) reference frames can be ignored. The most important differences between the predicted models are caused by (1) differences in the hydrology data from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP) vs. those from the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS), (2) grid interpolation, and (3) whether the topographic effect is removed or not. Both QLM and GGFC are extremely convenient tools for non-specialists to use to calculate loading effects. Due to the limitation of NCEP reanalysis hydrology data compared with the GLDAS model, the GGFC dataset is much more suitable than QLM for applying environmental loading corrections to GPS height time series. However, loading results for Greenland from GGFC should be discarded since hydrology data from GLDAS in this region are not accurate. The QLM model is equivalent to OMD in Greenland and, hence, could be used as a complement to the GGFC product to model the load in this region. We find that the predicted loading from all three models cannot reduce the scatter of the height coordinate for some stations in Europe.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00190-013-0642-3
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1458529491</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1458529491</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c349t-6921fe8acb453c08b25fbaff4317521512613a64aea1dc7033c4bccc2970c0513</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU1LAzEURYMoWKs_wF3AjZvRfM7HUopWoaCgrkMm89KmzExqkhb6702pCxFc5fE45xLeReiakjtKSHUfCaENKQjlBSkFK_gJmlDBWUF5I07RhDSiKaqKinN0EeM605WsywnyMz9sdNDJ7QDrUff76CL2FnfOWggwJgzjzgU_DnnWPe697ty4xAOkle9idjqcVuACdjnIpCyPhwWev73jvF-uEk5uABwhOIiX6MzqPsLVzztFn0-PH7PnYvE6f5k9LArDRZOKsmHUQq1NKyQ3pG6ZtK22VvD8b0YlZSXluhQaNO1MRTg3ojXGsKYihkjKp-j2mLsJ_msLManBRQN9r0fw26iokLVk-SgH9OYPuvbbkE-RKV5WQgpJWKbokTLBxxjAqk1wgw57RYk6VKCOFahcgTpUoHh22NGJmR2XEH4l_yt9A6kCiYo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1367454502</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative analysis of different environmental loading methods and their impacts on the GPS height time series</title><source>Springer Link</source><creator>Jiang, Weiping ; Li, Zhao ; van Dam, Tonie ; Ding, Wenwu</creator><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Weiping ; Li, Zhao ; van Dam, Tonie ; Ding, Wenwu</creatorcontrib><description>Three different environmental loading methods are used to estimate surface displacements and correct non-linear variations in a set of GPS weekly height time series. Loading data are provided by (1) Global Geophysical Fluid Center (GGFC), (2) Loading Model of Quasi-Observation Combination Analysis software (QLM) and (3) our own daily loading time series (we call it OMD for optimum model data). We find that OMD has the smallest scatter in height across the selected 233 globally distributed GPS reference stations, GGFC has the next smallest variability, and QLM has the largest scatter. By removing the load-induced height changes from the GPS height time series, we are able to reduce the scatter on 74, 64 and 41 % of the stations using the OMD models, the GGFC model and QLM model respectively. We demonstrate that the discrepancy between the center of earth (CE) and the center of figure (CF) reference frames can be ignored. The most important differences between the predicted models are caused by (1) differences in the hydrology data from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP) vs. those from the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS), (2) grid interpolation, and (3) whether the topographic effect is removed or not. Both QLM and GGFC are extremely convenient tools for non-specialists to use to calculate loading effects. Due to the limitation of NCEP reanalysis hydrology data compared with the GLDAS model, the GGFC dataset is much more suitable than QLM for applying environmental loading corrections to GPS height time series. However, loading results for Greenland from GGFC should be discarded since hydrology data from GLDAS in this region are not accurate. The QLM model is equivalent to OMD in Greenland and, hence, could be used as a complement to the GGFC product to model the load in this region. We find that the predicted loading from all three models cannot reduce the scatter of the height coordinate for some stations in Europe.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0949-7714</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1394</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00190-013-0642-3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Atmospheric research ; Comparative analysis ; Data collection ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Earth Sciences ; Geodetics ; Geophysics/Geodesy ; Global positioning systems ; GPS ; Hydrology ; Indexing in process ; Original Article ; Time series</subject><ispartof>Journal of geodesy, 2013-07, Vol.87 (7), p.687-703</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c349t-6921fe8acb453c08b25fbaff4317521512613a64aea1dc7033c4bccc2970c0513</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c349t-6921fe8acb453c08b25fbaff4317521512613a64aea1dc7033c4bccc2970c0513</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Weiping</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Zhao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Dam, Tonie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ding, Wenwu</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative analysis of different environmental loading methods and their impacts on the GPS height time series</title><title>Journal of geodesy</title><addtitle>J Geod</addtitle><description>Three different environmental loading methods are used to estimate surface displacements and correct non-linear variations in a set of GPS weekly height time series. Loading data are provided by (1) Global Geophysical Fluid Center (GGFC), (2) Loading Model of Quasi-Observation Combination Analysis software (QLM) and (3) our own daily loading time series (we call it OMD for optimum model data). We find that OMD has the smallest scatter in height across the selected 233 globally distributed GPS reference stations, GGFC has the next smallest variability, and QLM has the largest scatter. By removing the load-induced height changes from the GPS height time series, we are able to reduce the scatter on 74, 64 and 41 % of the stations using the OMD models, the GGFC model and QLM model respectively. We demonstrate that the discrepancy between the center of earth (CE) and the center of figure (CF) reference frames can be ignored. The most important differences between the predicted models are caused by (1) differences in the hydrology data from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP) vs. those from the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS), (2) grid interpolation, and (3) whether the topographic effect is removed or not. Both QLM and GGFC are extremely convenient tools for non-specialists to use to calculate loading effects. Due to the limitation of NCEP reanalysis hydrology data compared with the GLDAS model, the GGFC dataset is much more suitable than QLM for applying environmental loading corrections to GPS height time series. However, loading results for Greenland from GGFC should be discarded since hydrology data from GLDAS in this region are not accurate. The QLM model is equivalent to OMD in Greenland and, hence, could be used as a complement to the GGFC product to model the load in this region. We find that the predicted loading from all three models cannot reduce the scatter of the height coordinate for some stations in Europe.</description><subject>Atmospheric research</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Geodetics</subject><subject>Geophysics/Geodesy</subject><subject>Global positioning systems</subject><subject>GPS</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Indexing in process</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Time series</subject><issn>0949-7714</issn><issn>1432-1394</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kU1LAzEURYMoWKs_wF3AjZvRfM7HUopWoaCgrkMm89KmzExqkhb6702pCxFc5fE45xLeReiakjtKSHUfCaENKQjlBSkFK_gJmlDBWUF5I07RhDSiKaqKinN0EeM605WsywnyMz9sdNDJ7QDrUff76CL2FnfOWggwJgzjzgU_DnnWPe697ty4xAOkle9idjqcVuACdjnIpCyPhwWev73jvF-uEk5uABwhOIiX6MzqPsLVzztFn0-PH7PnYvE6f5k9LArDRZOKsmHUQq1NKyQ3pG6ZtK22VvD8b0YlZSXluhQaNO1MRTg3ojXGsKYihkjKp-j2mLsJ_msLManBRQN9r0fw26iokLVk-SgH9OYPuvbbkE-RKV5WQgpJWKbokTLBxxjAqk1wgw57RYk6VKCOFahcgTpUoHh22NGJmR2XEH4l_yt9A6kCiYo</recordid><startdate>20130701</startdate><enddate>20130701</enddate><creator>Jiang, Weiping</creator><creator>Li, Zhao</creator><creator>van Dam, Tonie</creator><creator>Ding, Wenwu</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130701</creationdate><title>Comparative analysis of different environmental loading methods and their impacts on the GPS height time series</title><author>Jiang, Weiping ; Li, Zhao ; van Dam, Tonie ; Ding, Wenwu</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c349t-6921fe8acb453c08b25fbaff4317521512613a64aea1dc7033c4bccc2970c0513</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Atmospheric research</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Geodetics</topic><topic>Geophysics/Geodesy</topic><topic>Global positioning systems</topic><topic>GPS</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Indexing in process</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Time series</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Weiping</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Zhao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Dam, Tonie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ding, Wenwu</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; 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>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Journal of geodesy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jiang, Weiping</au><au>Li, Zhao</au><au>van Dam, Tonie</au><au>Ding, Wenwu</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative analysis of different environmental loading methods and their impacts on the GPS height time series</atitle><jtitle>Journal of geodesy</jtitle><stitle>J Geod</stitle><date>2013-07-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>87</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>687</spage><epage>703</epage><pages>687-703</pages><issn>0949-7714</issn><eissn>1432-1394</eissn><abstract>Three different environmental loading methods are used to estimate surface displacements and correct non-linear variations in a set of GPS weekly height time series. Loading data are provided by (1) Global Geophysical Fluid Center (GGFC), (2) Loading Model of Quasi-Observation Combination Analysis software (QLM) and (3) our own daily loading time series (we call it OMD for optimum model data). We find that OMD has the smallest scatter in height across the selected 233 globally distributed GPS reference stations, GGFC has the next smallest variability, and QLM has the largest scatter. By removing the load-induced height changes from the GPS height time series, we are able to reduce the scatter on 74, 64 and 41 % of the stations using the OMD models, the GGFC model and QLM model respectively. We demonstrate that the discrepancy between the center of earth (CE) and the center of figure (CF) reference frames can be ignored. The most important differences between the predicted models are caused by (1) differences in the hydrology data from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP) vs. those from the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS), (2) grid interpolation, and (3) whether the topographic effect is removed or not. Both QLM and GGFC are extremely convenient tools for non-specialists to use to calculate loading effects. Due to the limitation of NCEP reanalysis hydrology data compared with the GLDAS model, the GGFC dataset is much more suitable than QLM for applying environmental loading corrections to GPS height time series. However, loading results for Greenland from GGFC should be discarded since hydrology data from GLDAS in this region are not accurate. The QLM model is equivalent to OMD in Greenland and, hence, could be used as a complement to the GGFC product to model the load in this region. We find that the predicted loading from all three models cannot reduce the scatter of the height coordinate for some stations in Europe.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><doi>10.1007/s00190-013-0642-3</doi><tpages>17</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0949-7714
ispartof Journal of geodesy, 2013-07, Vol.87 (7), p.687-703
issn 0949-7714
1432-1394
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1458529491
source Springer Link
subjects Atmospheric research
Comparative analysis
Data collection
Earth and Environmental Science
Earth Sciences
Geodetics
Geophysics/Geodesy
Global positioning systems
GPS
Hydrology
Indexing in process
Original Article
Time series
title Comparative analysis of different environmental loading methods and their impacts on the GPS height time series
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T18%3A54%3A08IST&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=Comparative%20analysis%20of%20different%20environmental%20loading%20methods%20and%20their%20impacts%20on%20the%20GPS%20height%20time%20series&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20geodesy&rft.au=Jiang,%20Weiping&rft.date=2013-07-01&rft.volume=87&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=687&rft.epage=703&rft.pages=687-703&rft.issn=0949-7714&rft.eissn=1432-1394&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00190-013-0642-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1458529491%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c349t-6921fe8acb453c08b25fbaff4317521512613a64aea1dc7033c4bccc2970c0513%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1367454502&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true