Long-period lunar Earth tides at the geographic South Pole and recent models of ocean tides

被引:9
作者
Bos, MS [1 ]
Baker, TF
Lyard, FH
Zürn, WE
Rydelek, PA
机构
[1] Bidston Observ, Proudman Oceanog Lab, Birkenhead CH43 7RA, Merseyside, England
[2] Grp Rech Geodesie Spatiale, CNRS, UMR5566, Toulouse, France
[3] Univ Karlsruhe, Black Forest Observ Schiltach, D-77709 Wolfach, Germany
[4] Univ Stuttgart, Black Forest Observ Schiltach, D-77709 Wolfach, Germany
[5] Univ Memphis, Ctr Earthquake Res & Informat, Memphis, TN 38152 USA
关键词
gravity; South Pole; tides;
D O I
10.1046/j.1365-246X.2000.01260.x
中图分类号
P3 [地球物理学]; P59 [地球化学];
学科分类号
0708 ; 070902 ;
摘要
For many years the ocean tide models of Schwiderski (1980) were the standards used by the Earth tide community to interpret deviations of observed Earth tides from predictions on the basis of earth models constructed by seismologists. Recently, the TOPEX/POSEIDON altimeter mission provided new and improved information on pelagic ocean tides, which led several research groups to generate new models of the major oceanic tides. This in turn renewed our own interest in the observations of long-period lunar tides at the geographic South Pole that were reported many years ago with an attempt to interpret the deviation from predictions using the Schwiderski models. We used four different models of the fortnightly (M-f) and monthly (M-m) ocean tides to calculate their attraction and loading effects at the South Pole and compared the results with the observed gravity tides. In our earlier interpretation we did not realize that for long-period ocean tides the so-called 'Greenwich' phase does not refer to the phase of these tides at the latitude of Greenwich, but to the phase at the equator. This resulted in a mistake in the relative phases of Earth tide and ocean effect at the South Pole. For M-f we now find that all models predict the phase lead of the observed versus theoretical tides within the formal uncertainties; however, the amplitude is still underpredicted by 1.5-2 per cent. This could be due to several reasons: instrument calibration, errors in the body and/or ocean tide models, relaxation of the Earth's elastic properties, and the huge ice sheet of Antarctica. These possibilities are discussed. For the M-m tide the observed amplitude is well predicted within error; however, the uncertainties in the measurements are rather large.
引用
收藏
页码:490 / 494
页数:5
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]   OCEAN-LOAD TIDES AT THE SOUTH-POLE - A VALIDATION OF RECENT OCEAN-TIDE MODELS [J].
AGNEW, DC .
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 1995, 22 (22) :3063-3066
[2]   SELF-CONSISTENT EQUILIBRIUM OCEAN TIDES [J].
AGNEW, DC ;
FARRELL, WE .
GEOPHYSICAL JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY, 1978, 55 (01) :171-181
[3]   NLOADF: A program for computing ocean-tide loading [J].
Agnew, DC .
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH, 1997, 102 (B3) :5109-5110
[4]   TIDAL GRAVITY AND OCEAN TIDE LOADING IN EUROPE [J].
BAKER, TF ;
EDGE, RJ ;
JEFFRIES, G .
GEOPHYSICAL JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL, 1991, 107 (01) :1-11
[5]   A new test of earth tide models in central Europe. [J].
Baker, TF ;
Curtis, DJ ;
Dodson, AH .
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 1996, 23 (24) :3559-3562
[6]   Global atmospheric loading and gravity [J].
Boy, JP ;
Hinderer, J ;
Gegout, P .
PHYSICS OF THE EARTH AND PLANETARY INTERIORS, 1998, 109 (3-4) :161-177
[7]   Tides for a convective Earth [J].
Dehant, V ;
Defraigne, P ;
Wahr, JM .
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH, 1999, 104 (B1) :1035-1058
[8]   Empirical ocean tide models estimated from TOPEX/POSEIDON altimetry [J].
Desai, SD ;
Wahr, JM .
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-OCEANS, 1995, 100 (C12) :25205-25228
[9]   PRELIMINARY REFERENCE EARTH MODEL [J].
DZIEWONSKI, AM ;
ANDERSON, DL .
PHYSICS OF THE EARTH AND PLANETARY INTERIORS, 1981, 25 (04) :297-356
[10]   DEFORMATION OF EARTH BY SURFACE LOADS [J].
FARRELL, WE .
REVIEWS OF GEOPHYSICS AND SPACE PHYSICS, 1972, 10 (03) :761-&