ESA's satellite‐only gravity field model via the direct approach based on all GOCE data
Open accessAbstract
Gravity field and steady state Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) gravity gradient data of the entire science mission and data from LAGEOS 1/2 and Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) were combined in the construction of a satellite‐only gravity field model to maximum degree 300. When compared to Earth Gravitational Model 2008, it is more accurate at low to medium resolution, thanks to GOCE and GRACE data. When compared to earlier releases of European Space Agency GOCE models, it is more accurate at high degrees owing to the larger amount of data ingested, which was moreover taken at lower altitude. The impact of orbiting at lower altitude in the last year of the mission is large: a model based on data of the last 14 months is significantly more accurate than the release 4 model constructed with the first 28 months. The (calibrated) cumulated geoid error estimate at 100 km resolution is 1.7 cm. The optimal resolution of the GOCE model for oceanographic application is between 100 and 125 km.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The potential is reconstructed with a centimetric accuracy at resolutions of the order of 100 km from GRACE and GOCE satellite data and integrated from near-surface gravimetry for shorter spatial scales.
“The potential is reconstructed with a centimetric accuracy at resolutions of the order of 100 km from GRACE and GOCE satellite data (Pail et al. 2011; Bruinsma et al. 2014) and integrated from near-surface gravimetry for the shorter spatial scales.”
From Determination of a high spatial resolution geopotential model using atomic clock comparisons (2017) · cites this paper as Bruinsma et al. 2014
Height uncertainty at or below 1 cm, corresponding to fractional frequency uncertainties below 1 × 10^-18, remains at best an optimistic goal.
“Refinements of geoid models using satellite-based long-wavelength data 33 and terrestrial short-wavelength data 34 may reduce future geoid model uncertainty to a degree, but height uncertainty at or below 1 cm (fractional frequency uncertainties below 1 × 10 -18 ) remains at best an optimistic goal 21,32 .”
From Atomic clock performance enabling geodesy below the centimetre level (2018) · cites this paper as [32]
The redshift transformation to the reference frame of TT has an uncertainty of 6 × 10^-18, limited by several-centimetre-level state-of-the-art geodetic determination, much larger than the total measurement uncertainty between the clocks.
“However, the redshift transformation to the reference frame of TT has an uncertainty of 6 × 10 -18 (limited by the several-centimetre-level state-of-the-art geodetic determination), much larger than the total measurement uncertainty between the clocks 32 .”
From Atomic clock performance enabling geodesy below the centimetre level (2018) · cites this paper as [32]
A recent state-of-the-art determination of the geopotential of the Q407 marker on the NIST-Boulder campus found a clock shift of (179,853(6)) × 10^-18 from the reference frame of TT.
“A recent state-of-the-art determination of the geopotential of the Q407 marker on the NIST-Boulder campus found a clock shift of (179,853(6)) × 10 -18 from the reference frame of TT 32 .”
From Atomic clock performance enabling geodesy below the centimetre level (2018) · cites this paper as [32]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 12 · Cited by 166
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Ihde, J., J. Adam, W. Gurtner, B. G. Harsson, M. Sacher, W. Schlüter, and G. Wöppelmann (2002), The height solution of the European Vertical Reference Network (EUVN), Mitteilungen des BKG, Bd. 25, EUREF Publication No. 11/I, Frankfurt a. M., Germany, pp. 53-79.
- Authors
- Bruinsma, S. L., Förste, C., Abrikosov, O., Lemoine, J., Marty, J., Mulet, S., Rio, M., & Bonvalot, S.
- Affiliations
- Centre National d'Études Spatiales (FR)
- GFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences (DE)
- Collecte Localisation Satellites (France) (FR)
- Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Bruinsma, Sean L.
- Venue
- Geophysical Research Letters
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2014-11-10
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 7508-7514
- ISSN
- 0094-8276 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-8007
- OpenAlex
- W2057656877
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 10.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Geophysical Research Letters (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Publication Database GFZ (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences) (submittedVersion)
- Publication Database GFZ (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- European Space Agency (18308/04/NL/MM)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Geophysics and Gravity Measurements
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › GNSS positioning and interference
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Ionosphere and magnetosphere dynamics
- Keywords
- GOCE, gravity field, gravity gradient data, grace, LAGEOS, low-altitude orbits, oceanographic applications
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
