摘要
对CSR、GFZ和JPL发布的RL06.3时变重力场模型,从一阶项、C_(20)和C_(30)及其地表质量异常、平均阶方差、全球地表质量变化的信噪比、典型区域陆地水储量变化等方面进行比较分析。结果表明,3家机构模型的一阶项、C_(20)及其地表质量异常在趋势项上差异显著,但周年项差异较小;C_(30)项在趋势项上差异较大,而周年项基本一致。同一机构不同阶次的RL06.3时变重力场模型的C_(20)和C_(30)项的趋势项和周年项基本无差异,但不同机构间的差异较为明显,尤其是趋势项差异更为显著。3家机构模型的平均阶方差在低阶项的信号拟合曲线高度一致,在高阶项CSR RL06.3模型的噪声拟合曲线上升最为平缓;3家机构模型的陆地水储量反演结果趋于一致,但CSR和JPL两家机构模型在反演精度和一致性方面表现更优,而GFZ RL06.3模型反演结果的不确定度普遍较大。在反演陆地水储量变化时,若忽略结果的不确定度,建议使用CSR或JPL发布的截断阶数较高的GRACE时变重力场模型,否则建议使用CSR发布的截断阶数较低的GRACE时变重力场模型。
We conduct a comparative analysis of RL06.3 time-variable gravity field models released by CSR,GFZ,and JPL,focusing on the degree one,C_(20)and C_(30)and their surface mass anomalies,mean degree variances,signal-to-noise ratios of global surface mass changes,and terrestrial water storage changes in typical regions.The results show that degree one,C_(20)and their surface mass anomalies of three models exhibit significant differences in trend but little differences in annual terms.For the C_(30),the trend shows considerable differences,while the annual terms are largely consistent.The C_(20)and C_(30)of RL06.3 models from the same institution with different truncation degrees have little impact on the trend and annual terms,but the differences between institutions are notable,particularly in the trend.The mean degree variances of three models are highly consistent in low-degree terms,while CSR RL06.3 shows the most gradual rise in noise fitting curves for high-degree terms.The terrestrial water storage inversion results from three models tend to be consistent,but the CSR and JPL models exhibit superior performance in terms of inversion accuracy and consistency.Conversely,the GFZ model generally presents a higher degree of uncertainty in its inversion results.When inverting terrestrial water storage changes,if the uncertainty of results is disregarded,it is recommended to use the GRACE time-variable gravity field models with higher truncation orders released by CSR or JPL.Otherwise,it is advisable to use the GRACE time-variable gravity field models with lower truncation orders released by CSR.
作者
张金辉
李姗姗
范昊鹏
范雕
ZHANG Jinhui;LI Shanshan;FAN Haopeng;FAN Diao(School of Surveying and Mapping,Information Engineering University,Zhengzhou 450001,China)
出处
《大地测量与地球动力学》
北大核心
2026年第2期234-243,共10页
Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics
基金
国家自然科学基金(42204009,42174007)。
