Comments on Lambeck and Coleman - 'The earth's shape and gravity field: A report of progress from 1958 to 1982'

The accuracy and validation of global gravity models based on satellite data are discussed, responding to the statistical analysis of Lambeck and Coleman (1983) (LC). Included are an evaluation of the LC error spectra, a summary of independent-observation calibrations of the error estimates of the Goddard Earth Models (GEM) 9 and L2 (Lerch et al., 1977, 1979, 1982, 1983, and 1985), a comparison of GEM-L2 with GRIM-3B (Reigber et al., 1983), a comparison of recent models with LAGEOS laser ranging, and a summary of resonant-orbit model tests. It is concluded that the accuracy of GEMs 9, 10, and L2 is much higher than claimed by LC, that the GEMs are in good agreement with independent observations and with GRIM-3B, and that the GEM calibrations were adequate. In a reply by LC, a number of specific questions regarding the error estimates are addressed, and it is pointed out that the intermodel discrepancies of the greatest geophysical interest are those in the higher-order coefficients, not discussed in the present comment. It is argued that the differences among the geoid heights of even the most recent models are large enough to call for considerable improvements.