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 planning. Depending on the use case, selecting the most suitable satellite data product can depend on the region of interest, data latency, and whether the data are provided routinely, for example via a climate or maritime service provider. Here we examine a suite of current sea ice thickness data products, collating key details of primary interest to end users. We assess 8 years of sea ice thickness observations derived from sensors on board the CryoSat-2 (CS2), Advanced Very-High-Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) and Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) satellites. We evaluate the satellite-only observations with independent ice draft and thickness measurements obtained from the Beaufort Gyre Exploration Project (BGEP) upward looking sonar (ULS) instruments and Operation IceBridge (OIB), respectively. We find a number of key differences among data products but find that products utilizing CS2-only measurements are reliable for sea ice thickness, particularly between ∼0.5 and 4 m. Among data compared, a blended CS2-SMOS product was the most reliable for thin ice. Ice thickness distributions at the end of winter appeared realistic when compared with independent ice draft measurements, with the exception of those derived from AVHRR. There is disagreement among the products in terms of the magnitude of the mean thickness trends, especially in spring 2017. Regional comparisons reveal noticeable differences in ice thickness between products, particularly in the marginal seas in areas of considerable ship traffic.
Highlights
With the observed decline in Arctic sea ice extent (Parkinson and Cavalieri, 2008; Markus et al, 2009; Perovich et al, 2018) and interests in the exploitation of regional natural resources, human activities in the Arctic have increased, alongside concerns for the state of the ice cover
Consistent with the results first noted in Tilling et al (2015), we see that following a cool summer in 2013, survival of ice through the melt season resulted in a rebound in thickness in autumn 2013, with mean thickness of 1.46 m (1.58 for CS2-only) and a thicker winter mean sea ice thickness of 2.34 m in spring 2014, which has persisted in the central Arctic for subsequent seasons (Fig. 2)
There was a larger spread in mean thickness across the products, and the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) thickness product diverged from the three other CS2-only products by approximately ∼ 0.3– 0.4 m (Fig. 6a)
Summary
With the observed decline in Arctic sea ice extent (Parkinson and Cavalieri, 2008; Markus et al, 2009; Perovich et al, 2018) and interests in the exploitation of regional natural resources, human activities in the Arctic have increased, alongside concerns for the state of the ice cover. Sea ice extent is traditionally the most widely discussed variable, sea ice thickness measurements are just as important and needed together with ice concentration to calculate sea ice volume, the best indicator of change in the Arctic ice cover (e.g. Laxon et al, 2013; Song, 2016). Laxon et al (2013) speculated that lower ice thickness, and volume, may have been a Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
