30.11.2014 Views

3.04 Gravimetric Methods – Superconducting Gravity Meters

3.04 Gravimetric Methods – Superconducting Gravity Meters

3.04 Gravimetric Methods – Superconducting Gravity Meters

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

110 <strong>Superconducting</strong> <strong>Gravity</strong> <strong>Meters</strong><br />

Δg (μGal)<br />

Δg (μGal)<br />

10<br />

5<br />

0<br />

<strong>–</strong>5<br />

Membach: 4 Aug. 1995<strong>–</strong>31 May 2000<br />

<strong>–</strong>10<br />

0 365 730 1095 1460<br />

t (days)<br />

10<br />

5<br />

0<br />

<strong>–</strong>5<br />

<strong>–</strong>10<br />

Potsdam: 30 Jun. 1992<strong>–</strong>8 Oct. 1998<br />

0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190<br />

t (days)<br />

Figure 30 Comparison between gravity residuals<br />

(solid line) and polar motion gravity prediction (dashed line)<br />

at stations Membach (Belgium) and Potsdam (Germany).<br />

Reproduced from Xu J-Q, Sun H-P, and Yang X-F (2004b) A<br />

study of gravity variations caused by polar motion using<br />

superconducting gravimeter data from the GGP network.<br />

Journal of Geodesy 78: 201<strong>–</strong>209 (doi: 10.1007/s00190-004-<br />

0386-1), with permission from Springer.<br />

long-term gravity measurements to solve tectonic problems<br />

is however significant, as clearly demonstrated<br />

by a recent study (Lambert et al., 2006) devotedto<br />

PGR in North America. In particular, they could<br />

show that the admittance of gravity to height changes<br />

(in mGal per millimeter) deduced from combined GPS<br />

and AG measurements is indeed close to the theoretically<br />

predicted value by Wahr et al. (1995) and by<br />

James and Ivins (1998) for a viscoelastic model.<br />

In fact, combining gravity and height changes<br />

measurements is very efficient in discriminating<br />

PGR effects from present-day ice melting contributions<br />

as shown by a recent investigation of the longterm<br />

gravity changes in Svalbard (Sato et al., 2006a,<br />

2006b). Another study based on 7 years of collocated<br />

gravity measurements of SG and AG at Membach<br />

(Belgium) by Francis et al. (2004) indicates that there<br />

is a small decrease in gravity connected to uplift seen<br />

by GPS at the same location. A longer data set is<br />

required to determine if this gravity decrease is due<br />

to PGR or active tectonics in the Ardenne mountains<br />

(see also Van Camp et al., 2002).<br />

Such comparisons of AG and GPS measurements<br />

are much easier to do when there are continuous SG<br />

measurements at the same location. In fact, the continuity<br />

of the SG record is often important to check<br />

the integrity of the AG measurements (discussed<br />

earlier in connection with the SG calibration) and<br />

to model effects such as hydrology that increase the<br />

AG scatter. Amalvict et al. (2004, 2006) analyzed the<br />

long-term gravity changes of the Strasbourg SG with<br />

regular AG measurements and collocated GPS and<br />

interpreted the results in terms of hydrology and<br />

tectonics of the Rhine graben. Figure 31 shows the<br />

gravity trend which seems to be present in an 8 year<br />

data set (1997<strong>–</strong>2004) and how hydrological contributions<br />

partly explain some of the gravity features.<br />

<strong>3.04</strong>.3.9 Ground/Satellite <strong>Gravity</strong> Field<br />

Comparison<br />

There is a major international effort in the present<br />

decade to measure variations in the Earth’s global<br />

gravity field using low-orbit satellites. The first satellite<br />

CHAMP was launched in 2000 and was followed 2<br />

years later by GRACE. In the near future, there will be<br />

a third mission called GOCE that will orbit even closer<br />

to the ground and hence be even more sensitive to<br />

smaller-scale gravity changes. The primary goal of<br />

these missions is to use the temporal changes of the<br />

Earth’s gravity field to infer changes in regional and<br />

continental water storage, and ocean circulation (see<br />

Wahr et al., 1998; Rodell and Famiglietti, 1999).<br />

A major concern with satellite measurements of<br />

time-varying gravity is how to calibrate and validate<br />

such observations. In addition to comparisons with<br />

models (the primary technique used to date), there<br />

are several possibilities using actual measurements at<br />

the ground (GPS, gravity) or at the ocean bottom<br />

(water pressure). This problem is important because<br />

if successful, it would produce an independent method<br />

of validation that does not rely solely on modeling. We<br />

will show hereafter that surface measurements from<br />

the GGP network provide a useful additional constraint<br />

on space gravity data. The validation signal is<br />

related to seasonal gravity changes that are coherent<br />

on length scales appropriate to satellite altitudes (typically<br />

a few hundreds of kilometers).<br />

A first study directly comparing CHAMP data to<br />

six SG ground observations was done by Neumeyer<br />

et al. (2004b) and has led to satisfactory results for all<br />

the stations in the 1 year analysis period (from

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!