1 / 20

Introduction and Objective

Comparison of Topex and Jason-1 sea state bias models S. Labroue, M. Ablain, J. Dorandeu, N. Tran, P. Gaspar and O.Z. Zanife. Question 1 : What is the impact of the LSE retracking on TOPEX waveforms regarding SSB issue?

osric
Download Presentation

Introduction and Objective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of Topex and Jason-1 sea state bias modelsS. Labroue, M. Ablain, J. Dorandeu, N. Tran, P. Gaspar and O.Z. Zanife

  2. Question 1 : What is the impact of the LSE retracking on TOPEX waveforms regarding SSB issue? Analysis of RGDR products for Topex (LSE retracking which seems to be more mature than MAP) Results presented last year showed that LSE retracking changes Topex SSB for waves greater than 4 m and that the new Topex SSB is closer to the Jason one. => Confirmation of these results are presented Question 2 : Can TOPEX leakages induce a sea state related signal and therefore pollute empirical SSB estimation from Topex data if these leakages are not well accounted for in the retracking procedure? Introduction and Objective

  3. Topex LSE 328-364 Topex SSB, MGDR More physical variations Same behavior Except for the minimum at 12 m/s -30 cm 0 cm -30 cm 0 cm SWH filtering (/20 cm), SSH filtering 3cm GIM ionospheric correction Gourrion/Vandemark Wind Speed + Sigma0 from MDR not consistent with Range and SWH MGDR+RGDR editing

  4. Jason SSB (95-131) Topex LSE (328-364) -30 cm -30 cm 0 cm 0 cm Both SSB are estimated on a full year of data. Cycles 1-21 are not enough to assess accurately the sea state variations.

  5. Jason SSB - Topex SSB Mean SSB difference, Cycles 1-21 +1 cm -1 cm Mean value 3.5 mm The SSB difference noticed for very strong sea states is not present on the geographic analysis. -5 cm +5 cm

  6. Consistency between Jason and Topex JA(GDRB) - TP(RGDR_LSE), cycles 1-21 Thanks to the good quality of orbits and with a consistent orbit applied to Topex and Jason, geographically correlated signals disappear and the remaining patterns can be more easily correlated with sea state or not… Comparisons of range measurements alone show a small signal of 5 mm that can be related to sea state. +1 cm +1 cm -1 cm -1 cm Mean value 7.6 cm Mean value 7.8 cm Orbit-Range, 2007 data GSFC ITRF 2000 orbit for Jason Orbit-Range, Venice 2006

  7. Consistency between Jason and Topex, JA(GDRB) - TP(RGDR_LSE), cycles 1-21 SSB dif SWH Very good global consistency. The new SSB models slightly improve the consistency. +1 cm -1 cm +1 cm +1 cm -1 cm -1 cm Orbit-Range Orbit-Range-SSB Mean value 7.8 cm Mean value 7.4 cm

  8. Orbit – Range (GSFC orbits) 1 cm 5 cm 9 cm 5 cm 9 cm 5 mm 5 cm 9 cm 5 cm 9 cm Orbit – Range - SSB (GSFC orbits) Good global results but some sea state related signals are still there when comparing the quadrants. A SSB estimated globally on Topex cannot remove all the residual sea state dependences

  9. 2 cm 2 cm The 4 quadrants show the same differences between retracked Range and MGDR Range regarding SWH variations, except for SWH > 7 m. => LSE retracking LSE does not change the quadrant differences of the Topex range (except for a constant value that may explain the greater magnitude of the North/South signal observed on the crossover mean difference). The 4 plots exhibit 2 cm on the range between 3 m et 6 m of SWH. North Asc North Desc LSE Range-MGDR Range = f(SWH) 2 cm 2 cm South Desc South Asc

  10. We focus on South hemisphere since there are more (SWH,U) situations compared to North hemisphere -5 cm +5 cm -5 cm +5 cm South Asc SSB – South Desc SSB TPB LSE South Asc SSB – South Desc SSB Jason No quadrant effects on Jason SSB but there is a difference on Topex

  11. Ascending and descending south have differents Range/SWH correlations on Topex, whatever the processing applied (retracking or MGDR corrections) -5 cm +5 cm -5 cm +5 cm South Asc SSB – South Desc SSB TPB LSE South Asc SSB – South Desc SSB TPB MGDR

  12. Topex side A seems more consistent than side B between quadrants of different range rate sign. -5 cm +5 cm -5 cm +5 cm South Asc SSB – South Desc SSB TPA MGDR South Asc SSB – South Desc SSB TPB MGDR

  13. North Desc North Asc TPB SSB – TPA SSB MGDR data Topex side A and side B have different sea state behaviour globally and by quadrants. => Different leakages between side A and side B => Which one gives the most accurate SSB? => Need of Jason SSB to make comparisons South Desc South Asc +5 cm -5 cm -5 cm +5 cm

  14. Topex is closer to Jason on the ascending South. This is in agreement with geographic analysis. -5 cm +5 cm -5 cm +5 cm Jason SSB – TP LSE SSB South Asc Jason SSB – TP LSE SSB South Desc

  15. LSE retracking on Topex has changed the SSB for Topex => Retracking performed on TOPEX side A should be done in order to confirm this result on side A. Jason SSB (MLE4) et Topex SSB (LSE) are in very good agreement. All the empirical SSB models on altimetric missions are now very close to each other (Topex, Jason, EnviSat and GFO). The MAP algorithm exhibits other sea state related signals which appear dubious since all the skewness coefficients meant to absorb leakages errors remain at zero values. Topex retracking makes Jason and Topex SSB more consistent, but it did not change the leakage effects. Leakage effects induce a constant range bias by quadrant + sea state errors (Cf side A and side B SSB differences + SSB differences between quadrants) => It is difficult to estimate an empirical SSB model on Topex without including leakage errors in the SSB. Are the ground segment MGDR corrections that replace retracking in MGDR (Acceleration correction and SWH/Att correction) affected by leakage errors? Further studies on Topex waveforms are needed in order to improve the processing on the measurements affected by the leakages. It is worth working on this subject since Topex side B appears to be more impacted by the leakages than side A and we are now looking at millimeter residual signals. Conclusions

  16. Consistency between Jason and Topex JA(GDRB) - TP(RGDR), cycles 1-21 +1 cm +1 cm -1 cm -1 cm Mean value 8.2 cm Mean value 7.4 cm H-R-SSB Venise 2006 H-R-SSB 2007

  17. Topex - Ascending/Descending/North/South features LSE Skewness -2 cm +2 cm Orbit – Range 2007 (GSFC orbits)

  18. 9 cm 5 cm Topex - Ascending/Descending/North/South features Orbit – Range 2006 5 cm 9 cm Orbit – Range 2007 (GSFC orbits) => Different signals related to the sea state depending on the quadrant (on the sign of the range rate)

  19. -5 cm +5 cm -5 cm +5 cm Jason SSB – Topex SSB, 2006 Jason SSB – Topex SSB, 2007 The SSB difference is more and more difficult to assess accurately since the residual differences betweenTopex and Jason SSB are very small and therefore more impacted by several changes in the estimation process (period, data editing, smoothing…).

  20. Topex 2007 – Topex 2006 Jason 2007 – Jason 2006 Wind speed Change Smoothing Smoothing Estimation period Smoothing+ Editing -5 cm +5 cm -5 cm +5 cm

More Related