New gravity data in the Arctic Ocean: Comparison of airborne and ERS gravity

New gravity fields from airborne gravimetry and from ERS‐1 and ‐2 satellite altimetry cover extensive portions of the Arctic Ocean. These two data sets may constitute as much as 60% of the data contributions to the Arctic Gravity Project compilation. Here we evaluate the accuracy and resolution of t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Geophysical Research 2001-05, Vol.106 (B5), p.8871-8886
Main Authors: Childers, Vicki A., McAdoo, David C., Brozena, John M., Laxon, Seymour W.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Earth sciences
Earth, ocean, space
Exact sciences and technology
Internal geophysics
Marine
Solid-earth geophysics, tectonophysics, gravimetry
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!
Description
Summary:New gravity fields from airborne gravimetry and from ERS‐1 and ‐2 satellite altimetry cover extensive portions of the Arctic Ocean. These two data sets may constitute as much as 60% of the data contributions to the Arctic Gravity Project compilation. Here we evaluate the accuracy and resolution of these data and quantify their impact on the compilation. Both gravity determinations compare favorably with Geological Survey of Canada surface measurements in the Beaufort Sea (airborne, 1.86–2.09 mGal rms; ERS, 2.64–3.11 mGal rms). Comparisons between the airborne and ERS data over the Chukchi Borderlands reveal a 4.38 mGal rms difference over the smoother region of the field and 7.36 mGal rms over the rugose field generated by the shallow ridges and deep troughs. Coherency between the two data sets in the Chukchi region implies a resolution of 19 km. Comparison with Science Ice Expedition submarine measurements over Chukchi Plateau suggests that the ERS field resolves even shorter‐wavelength signal than the airborne data, whereas in the Beaufort Sea the airborne data showed better coherence to ground truth data. Long‐wavelength differences exist between the two data sets, expressed as a 2–3 mGal offset over the Chukchi region. This study highlights the respective strengths of the two data sets. The ERS gravity field has the advantage of ubiquitous coverage of the ocean south of 81.5°N, a denser sampling of the gravity field, and a recovery of signal down to ∼15 km. The airborne data cover a significant portion of the polar hole in the satellite coverage, have lower measurement noise, and recover somewhat higher anomaly amplitudes in the 25–100 km wavelength range.
ISSN:0148-0227
2156-2202
DOI:10.1029/2000JB900405