Pugh, D., Hunter, J., Coleman, R. and Watson, C., 2002. A ...
Pugh, D., Hunter, J., Coleman, R. and Watson, C., 2002. A ... Pugh, D., Hunter, J., Coleman, R. and Watson, C., 2002. A ...
O1K1M2S2h0.1380.2050.2400.015g52.887.11243.7249.0Table 3 : Amplitude, h (m) and phase, g (degrees, relative to local time (UTC + 10 hours)) ofmajor constituents from modern observations at Port Arthur.The mean sea level from the recent 2-year analysis was found to be 0.315 m below thebenchmark.TWENTIETH CENTURY LEVELLINGIt was necessary to place a number of survey marks in the area, both at the Port Arthur settlementand on the Isle of the Dead, in order to relate the new tide gauge measurements to the historictidal benchmark. A number of different survey techniques were used to make this heightconnection – for a detailed description of the survey see Watson (1999).Tide Gauge BenchmarksThe tide gauge hut at Port Arthur (see Figure 6) has two specific reference points for height. Thefirst point is used for fundamental GPS positioning of the tide gauge in an ‘absolute’ geodeticreference frame and consists of a steel pole passing through the tide gauge hut, independentlybolted to the concrete wharf. The second point of reference is the calibrated external referencemark on the acoustic tide gauge itself, and comprises a rounded stainless steel dome. This markserves as the external reference point for all modern-day tidal observations.A number of additional tide gauge benchmarks (TGBMs) have been placed throughout the PortArthur settlement to monitor the local stability of the tide gauge reference points. Four epochs ofprecise levelling have been carried out (August and October 1998, October 1999 and August2001), with sub-mm accuracy for all levelling runs. No significant relative displacements havebeen observed between these stations and the acoustic tide gauge. Conservative error estimatesof ± 0.5 mm are used for height differences between these reference marks.Isle of the DeadSeveral TGBMs were placed on the Isle of the Dead during May 1998. The benchmarks wereplaced so that a transfer of orthometric height could be made from the historic tidal benchmarkon the Isle of the Dead to the acoustic gauge at the Port Arthur settlement. The first componentof the height transfer was a direct levelling measurement from the centre of the horizontalbenchmark cut to a nearby placed TGBM. From this TGBM, a level run was made via a seriesof TGBMs to the other side of the Isle of the Dead where a GPS reference point was placed.Two epochs of precise levelling were made from the historic tidal benchmark and the GPSreference point, with a precision of the height difference of ± 0.4 mm.
Connection between Port Arthur and the Isle of the DeadThe height transfer across the 1.2 km stretch of water between the GPS reference point and thetide gauge site at Port Arthur was made using three different survey techniques – GPSobservations, terrestrial survey measurements of reciprocal vertical angles and slope distances,and a technique of optical levelling using four levels and two calibrated staves.The GPS observations were made using two static campaigns (13 hours on 5 September 1998and 21 hours during 17-18 February 1999). Both campaigns were processed independently intwo suites of software yielding agreement at the 5 mm level. In order to compute the orthometricheight difference from the GPS-derived ellipsoidal height difference, the geoid slope must beaccounted for. Information on the geoid slope was obtained from the geoid model AUSGeoid98(Johnston and Featherstone, 1998) and verified using data from two GPS buoys deployedbetween Port Arthur and the Isle of the Dead (Watson, 1999).The terrestrial observations yielded two estimates of orthometric height difference and theyagreed within 5 mm of each other and differed at most by 7 mm from the GPS result. Overallthe precision of this connection was of the order of 5-10 mm.The above results allow the relative connection to be made between the historic benchmark andthe modern acoustic tide gauge. Hence the relative change in sea level can be determined usingthe mean sea level values from 1841-1842 and the current observations from 1999-2001.ESTIMATIONS OF ERRORS AND UNCERTAINTIESOur estimates of historical and recent mean sea level relative to the benchmark involves anumber of errors and uncertainties which may be estimated.1 An error due to the natural variability of sea level over time scales not captured by thespan of the observational data sets (two years),2 An error due to the levelling between the benchmark and the tide gauge (separated by 1.2km, and3 Instrumental, reading and other experimental errors.We estimated error (1) using a sea level record from Spring Bay, which is on the east coast ofTasmania 67 km north of Port Arthur. The tide gauge is an Aquatrak, similar to the one installedat Port Arthur, operated by the NTF. Tidal residual data for Spring Bay for the period 1985-2001 was obtained using a tidal filter. The variability of sea level derived from a two-yearaverage was estimated from the standard deviation of the Spring Bay data filtered with a box-carof length two years. We acknowledge that this provides an underestimate of the total variability,as it fails to include time scales longer than 16 years. We tested the importance of these longertime scales by using the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) as a proxy for sea level. One hundredand thirty years of monthly SOI data for 1866-1995 inclusive (Allan et al, 1991) were filteredwith a two-year box-car filter. The resultant data set therefore represented samples frompopulations of two-year estimates of mean sea level. This 130-year data set was then subdividedinto ten 13-year data sets (ie approximately the length of the record from Spring Bay). It wasfound that the variance of the whole 130-year set exceeded the mean of the variances of each 13-year set by 11%. We therefore expect that our estimate of the standard deviation of the
- Page 2: ABSTRACTEstimates of anticipated se
- Page 5 and 6: Other folders contain meteorologica
- Page 7 and 8: Sur la mobilité de fond de la Mer
- Page 9 and 10: 1 Analysis of recent measurements a
- Page 11: average less than those plotted in
- Page 16 and 17: lower than the long-term (1912-1999
- Page 18 and 19: The minutes of the meeting of the T
- Page 20 and 21: Peltier, W.R.,1999. Global sea leve
- Page 22 and 23: Figure 1
- Page 24: Figure 3
- Page 27 and 28: Figure 6
- Page 29: Figure 8
O1K1M2S2h0.1380.2050.2400.015g52.887.11243.7249.0Table 3 : Amplitude, h (m) <strong>and</strong> phase, g (degrees, relative to local time (UTC + 10 hours)) ofmajor constituents from modern observations at Port Arthur.The mean sea level from the recent 2-year analysis was found to be 0.315 m below thebenchmark.TWENTIETH CENTURY LEVELLINGIt was necessary to place a number of survey marks in the area, both at the Port Arthur settlement<strong>and</strong> on the Isle of the Dead, in order to relate the new tide gauge measurements to the historictidal benchmark. A number of different survey techniques were used to make this heightconnection – for a detailed description of the survey see <strong>Watson</strong> (1999).Tide Gauge BenchmarksThe tide gauge hut at Port Arthur (see Figure 6) has two specific reference points for height. Thefirst point is used for fundamental GPS positioning of the tide gauge in an ‘absolute’ geodeticreference frame <strong>and</strong> consists of a steel pole passing through the tide gauge hut, independentlybolted to the concrete wharf. The second point of reference is the calibrated external referencemark on the acoustic tide gauge itself, <strong>and</strong> comprises a rounded stainless steel dome. This markserves as the external reference point for all modern-day tidal observations.A number of additional tide gauge benchmarks (TGBMs) have been placed throughout the PortArthur settlement to monitor the local stability of the tide gauge reference points. Four epochs ofprecise levelling have been carried out (August <strong>and</strong> October 1998, October 1999 <strong>and</strong> August2001), with sub-mm accuracy for all levelling runs. No significant relative displacements havebeen observed between these stations <strong>and</strong> the acoustic tide gauge. Conservative error estimatesof ± 0.5 mm are used for height differences between these reference marks.Isle of the DeadSeveral TGBMs were placed on the Isle of the Dead during May 1998. The benchmarks wereplaced so that a transfer of orthometric height could be made from the historic tidal benchmarkon the Isle of the Dead to the acoustic gauge at the Port Arthur settlement. The first componentof the height transfer was a direct levelling measurement from the centre of the horizontalbenchmark cut to a nearby placed TGBM. From this TGBM, a level run was made via a seriesof TGBMs to the other side of the Isle of the Dead where a GPS reference point was placed.Two epochs of precise levelling were made from the historic tidal benchmark <strong>and</strong> the GPSreference point, with a precision of the height difference of ± 0.4 mm.
Change language