2015
DOI: 10.1002/2014wr016853
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Global analysis of approaches for deriving total water storage changes from GRACE satellites

Abstract: Increasing interest in use of GRACE satellites and a variety of new products to monitor changes in total water storage (TWS) underscores the need to assess the reliability of output from different products. The objective of this study was to assess skills and uncertainties of different approaches for processing GRACE data to restore signal losses caused by spatial filtering based on analysis of 1 3 1 grid-scale data and in 60 river basins globally. Results indicate that scaling factors from six LSMs, including… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
153
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 203 publications
(158 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
4
153
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The scaling factor for this region may vary when different LSMs or HMs are used. We compare the scaling factors for this region calculated by Landerer and Swenson [37], Long et al [35], and Long et al [36], respectively, and found that the factor scaling for Horqin Sandy Land derived from different HMs is also different, but the gap is relatively small. In this case, we just followed Landerer's work, in which the scaling factor is derived by least square fit between spatially averaged filtered and unfiltered modeled TWS anomaly (TWSA) time series from GLDAS-NOAH [37].…”
Section: Grace Datamentioning
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The scaling factor for this region may vary when different LSMs or HMs are used. We compare the scaling factors for this region calculated by Landerer and Swenson [37], Long et al [35], and Long et al [36], respectively, and found that the factor scaling for Horqin Sandy Land derived from different HMs is also different, but the gap is relatively small. In this case, we just followed Landerer's work, in which the scaling factor is derived by least square fit between spatially averaged filtered and unfiltered modeled TWS anomaly (TWSA) time series from GLDAS-NOAH [37].…”
Section: Grace Datamentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Moreover, bias and leakage corrections are likely less accurate when reservoir storage is considered a major component of the water balance because GLDAS excludes reservoir storage [34]. On the other hand, scaling factors derived from different LSMs or HMs are similar over most humid, subhumid, and high-latitude regions, but can differ by up to 100% over arid and semiarid basins as well as areas with intensive irrigation [35]. Long et al [36] found that filtered GRACE TWS changes applied with PCR-GLOBWB scaling factors exhibit closer agreement with water budget estimates of TWS changes than those applied with scaling factors from other LSMs in the Yangtze River Basin.…”
Section: Grace Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To facilitate insight into the underlying processes, hydrological models are frequently used to separate the measured TWS into its different components such as groundwater, soil moisture, and snowpacks (Felfelani et al, 2017). However, as a consequence of uncertain model structure, forcing, and parametrization, model-based partitioning is ambiguous (Güntner, 2008) and may lead to diverging conclusions, especially on regional scale (Long et al, 2015;Schellekens et al, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…So far, only a few models used to assess hydrological processes on continental to global scales are constrained by observations, and if so, they are mainly calibrated against the observed discharge of large river basins (Long et al, 2015;Döll et al, 2015). Recently, several studies showed the benefits of additionally including GRACE TWS data in model calibration (Werth and Güntner, 2010;Xie et al, 2012;Chen et al, 2017) or by means of data assimilation Forman et al, 2012;Kumar et al, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…GRACE has also been used for comparisons, validation and calibration of hydrological models [28][29][30]. The ∆TWS from GRACE was compared with in-situ observations [31][32][33], altimetry observations [32,[34][35][36] and hydrological models [36][37][38].…”
Section: Grace-derived ∆Twsmentioning
confidence: 99%