2001
DOI: 10.3189/172756401781818770
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sea-ice thickness and roughness in the Ross Sea, Antarctica

Abstract: ABSTRACT. Sea-ice thickness and roughness data collected on three cruises in the Ross Sea, Antarctica, showed interseasonal, regional and interannual variability. Variability was reduced to season, or age of ice floe, when sea-ice roughness values from around Antarctica were compared.There were statistically significant correlations between mean snow elevation and mean ice thickness; snow surface roughness and mean ice thickness; and snow surface roughness and ice bottom roughness, which appeared to be indepen… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
25
1

Year Published

2004
2004
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
5
25
1
Order By: Relevance
“…One of the factors which contributes to the overestimated sea ice in summer in the offline model is that atmospheric boundary conditions are not daily but monthly data, which tend to yield smaller seasonal cycle [Wu et al, 1997]. The simulated ice thickness ranges from several tens of centimeters to more than 1 m in both models, which is in approximate agreement with the limited observation (Figure 4) [Tin and Jeffries, 2001;Adolphs, 1998;Worby et al, 1996;Andreas et al, 1993;Rind et al, 1995]. Annual mean sea ice velocity simulated by the two models are also displayed in Figure 5.…”
Section: Standard Simulationsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…One of the factors which contributes to the overestimated sea ice in summer in the offline model is that atmospheric boundary conditions are not daily but monthly data, which tend to yield smaller seasonal cycle [Wu et al, 1997]. The simulated ice thickness ranges from several tens of centimeters to more than 1 m in both models, which is in approximate agreement with the limited observation (Figure 4) [Tin and Jeffries, 2001;Adolphs, 1998;Worby et al, 1996;Andreas et al, 1993;Rind et al, 1995]. Annual mean sea ice velocity simulated by the two models are also displayed in Figure 5.…”
Section: Standard Simulationsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…Based on analyses of in situ data from the Arctic and Antarctic [e.g., Sturm et al , 2006; Tin and Jeffries , 2001; Massom et al , 1997], we expect to be able to infer a subgrid cell snow depth distribution by utilizing relationships between snow depth and sea ice thickness, freeboard, roughness, and surface reflectivity. For example, we expect points with low reflectivity at wavelengths used by laser altimeters to have little to no snow cover so that we can infer sea ice thickness directly from the freeboard estimate.…”
Section: Scaling Of Large‐scale Snow Depth Data To the Altimeter Resomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These form in the lee of these obstacles and can extend for up to tens of meters from the obstacle [Radionov et al, 1997;Sturm et al, 1998Sturm et al, , 2002Massom et al, 2001]. Due to changing wind directions relative to the floe orientation, drift deposits typically form aprons on both sides of the ridge so that deeper snow is often associated with ridges [Tin and Jeffries, 2001;Sturm et al, 2002], and more heavily deformed floes may tend to support deeper snow cover. This relative wind rotation also leads to cross bedding of snow dunes on level ice [Sturm and Massom, 2009].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%