2019
DOI: 10.5194/tc-13-1187-2019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of contemporary satellite sea ice thickness products for Arctic sea ice

Abstract: Abstract. Advances in remote sensing of sea ice over the past two decades have resulted in a wide variety of satellite-derived sea ice thickness data products becoming publicly available. Selecting the most appropriate product is challenging given end user objectives range from incorporating satellite-derived thickness information in operational activities, including sea ice forecasting, routing of maritime traffic and search and rescue, to climate change analysis, longer-term modelling, prediction and future … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
48
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
4
48
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Systematic uncertainties in ice thickness/volume of this magnitude could have severe implications for calculating the seasonal and interannual sea ice thickness/volume budget, including ice growth and melt rates (e.g., Kwok, 2018;Petty et al, 2018;Stroeve et al, 2018), fluxes of sea ice exported from the Arctic via Fram Strait (Ricker et al, 2018), for initializing dynamical sea ice forecasting systems (Day et al, 2014;Schröder et al, 2019), and for constraining freshwater fluxes into the Arctic Ocean (Bacon et al, 2015). Sallila et al (2019) discovered a similar pattern of pan-Arctic offsets between the CPOM and AWI sea ice thickness products to our emulated freeboards, with the MYI consistently thicker and FYI consistently thinner in the AWI product. They also found the GSFC ice thickness product to be universally thicker than the other products, which contradicts our finding that minimum radar freeboard was derived from the Gaussian model retracker.…”
Section: 1029/2019jc015820mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Systematic uncertainties in ice thickness/volume of this magnitude could have severe implications for calculating the seasonal and interannual sea ice thickness/volume budget, including ice growth and melt rates (e.g., Kwok, 2018;Petty et al, 2018;Stroeve et al, 2018), fluxes of sea ice exported from the Arctic via Fram Strait (Ricker et al, 2018), for initializing dynamical sea ice forecasting systems (Day et al, 2014;Schröder et al, 2019), and for constraining freshwater fluxes into the Arctic Ocean (Bacon et al, 2015). Sallila et al (2019) discovered a similar pattern of pan-Arctic offsets between the CPOM and AWI sea ice thickness products to our emulated freeboards, with the MYI consistently thicker and FYI consistently thinner in the AWI product. They also found the GSFC ice thickness product to be universally thicker than the other products, which contradicts our finding that minimum radar freeboard was derived from the Gaussian model retracker.…”
Section: 1029/2019jc015820mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Loss of Arctic sea ice is exacerbating planetary warming owing to the ice albedo feedback (e.g. Budyko, 1969;Serreze and Francis, 2006;Screen and Simmonds 2010), and loss of land ice is the principal source of global sea level rise (see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC; SROCC, 2019). The rates and magnitudes of depletion of Earth's marine and terrestrial ice fields are among the most significant elements of future climate projections (Meredith et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The CryoSat‐2‐derived sea ice thickness is more accurate for the central Arctic ice pack. It is also possible for thin ice measurement but with less robustness (Sallila et al, 2019). The second product is the daily sea ice thickness derived from the SMOS brightness temperature measured by the Microwave Imaging Radiometer using Aperture Synthesis using a single‐layer emissivity model (Kaleschke et al, 2012; Tian‐Kunze et al, 2014; https://icdc.cen.uni-hamburg.de/thredds/catalog/ftpthredds/smos_sea_ice_thickness/catalog.html).…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 99%