Abstract:Abstract. In the context of quantifying Arctic ice-volume decrease at global scale, the CryoSat-2 satellite was launched in 2010 and is equipped with the K u band synthetic aperture radar altimeter SIRAL (Synthetic Aperture Interferometric Radar Altimeter), which we use to derive sea-ice freeboard defined as the height of the ice surface above the sea level. Accurate CryoSat-2 range measurements over open water and the ice surface of the order of centimetres are necessary to achieve the required accuracy of th… Show more
“…In this case radar altimeter range measurements generally relate to ice freeboard. However, the generality of this assumption has been recently questioned by several publications (Willatt et al, 2010(Willatt et al, , 2011Ricker et al, 2014;Kurtz et al, 2014;Price et al, 2015;Kwok, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A full description is given in Ricker et al (2014). Leads are cracks in the ice cover and usually have a distinct specular radar echo, while open-ocean and sea-ice surfaces have wider waveforms, resulting from diffuse reflection due to the higher surface roughness (see Fig.…”
Section: Cryosat-2 Freeboard Retrievalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We use the geolocated level 1b Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and interferometric SAR (SARIn) waveform products over the Southern Ocean (K u band, 13.575 GHz) provided by the ESA (https://earth.esa.int/web/ guest/-/how-to-access-cryosat-data-6842). The surface elevations are processed along individual CS-2 orbits using the Threshold First-Maximum Retracker Algorithm (TFMRA) described by Helm et al (2014) and Ricker et al (2014) in detail. Specifically, the main scattering horizon is tracked at the waveforms' leading edge of the first local maximum by using a power threshold (see Fig.…”
Section: Cryosat-2 Freeboard Retrievalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different is the waveform-based surface type classification, where individual radar echoes are segmented in the classes lead, sea ice and unclassified. While CS-2 waveforms are classified using a multi-parameter approach (Ricker et al, 2014), Envisat waveform parameters for classification are limited to the PP defined as (Peacock and Laxon, 2004) …”
Section: Envisat Freeboard Retrievalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The capability of sea-ice thickness retrieval using satellite radar and laser altimetry data has been demonstrated for Arctic and Antarctic sea ice (Ricker et al, 2014;Laxon et al, 2013;Kurtz et al, 2014;Zwally et al, 2008;. The altimetry sea-ice thickness retrieval algorithm is based on estimations of freeboard, the height of the ice (ice freeboard) or snow surface (total or snow freeboard) above the local sea level.…”
Abstract. Knowledge about Antarctic sea-ice volume and its changes over the past decades has been sparse due to the lack of systematic sea-ice thickness measurements in this remote area. Recently, first attempts have been made to develop a sea-ice thickness product over the Southern Ocean from space-borne radar altimetry and results look promising. Today, more than 20 years of radar altimeter data are potentially available for such products. However, the characteristics of individual radar types differ for the available altimeter missions. Hence, it is important and our goal to study the consistency between single sensors in order to develop long and consistent time series. Here, the consistency between freeboard measurements of the Radar Altimeter 2 on board Envisat and freeboard measurements from the SyntheticAperture Interferometric Radar Altimeter on board CryoSat-2 is tested for their overlap period in 2011. Results indicate that mean and modal values are in reasonable agreement over the sea-ice growth season (May-October) and partly also beyond. In general, Envisat data show higher freeboards in the first-year ice zone while CryoSat-2 freeboards are higher in the multiyear ice zone and near the coasts. This has consequences for the agreement in individual sectors of the Southern Ocean, where one or the other ice class may dominate. Nevertheless, over the growth season, mean freeboard for the entire (regionally separated) Southern Ocean differs generally by not more than 3 cm (8 cm, with few exceptions) between Envisat and CryoSat-2, and the differences between modal freeboards lie generally within ±10 cm and often even below.
“…In this case radar altimeter range measurements generally relate to ice freeboard. However, the generality of this assumption has been recently questioned by several publications (Willatt et al, 2010(Willatt et al, , 2011Ricker et al, 2014;Kurtz et al, 2014;Price et al, 2015;Kwok, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A full description is given in Ricker et al (2014). Leads are cracks in the ice cover and usually have a distinct specular radar echo, while open-ocean and sea-ice surfaces have wider waveforms, resulting from diffuse reflection due to the higher surface roughness (see Fig.…”
Section: Cryosat-2 Freeboard Retrievalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We use the geolocated level 1b Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and interferometric SAR (SARIn) waveform products over the Southern Ocean (K u band, 13.575 GHz) provided by the ESA (https://earth.esa.int/web/ guest/-/how-to-access-cryosat-data-6842). The surface elevations are processed along individual CS-2 orbits using the Threshold First-Maximum Retracker Algorithm (TFMRA) described by Helm et al (2014) and Ricker et al (2014) in detail. Specifically, the main scattering horizon is tracked at the waveforms' leading edge of the first local maximum by using a power threshold (see Fig.…”
Section: Cryosat-2 Freeboard Retrievalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different is the waveform-based surface type classification, where individual radar echoes are segmented in the classes lead, sea ice and unclassified. While CS-2 waveforms are classified using a multi-parameter approach (Ricker et al, 2014), Envisat waveform parameters for classification are limited to the PP defined as (Peacock and Laxon, 2004) …”
Section: Envisat Freeboard Retrievalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The capability of sea-ice thickness retrieval using satellite radar and laser altimetry data has been demonstrated for Arctic and Antarctic sea ice (Ricker et al, 2014;Laxon et al, 2013;Kurtz et al, 2014;Zwally et al, 2008;. The altimetry sea-ice thickness retrieval algorithm is based on estimations of freeboard, the height of the ice (ice freeboard) or snow surface (total or snow freeboard) above the local sea level.…”
Abstract. Knowledge about Antarctic sea-ice volume and its changes over the past decades has been sparse due to the lack of systematic sea-ice thickness measurements in this remote area. Recently, first attempts have been made to develop a sea-ice thickness product over the Southern Ocean from space-borne radar altimetry and results look promising. Today, more than 20 years of radar altimeter data are potentially available for such products. However, the characteristics of individual radar types differ for the available altimeter missions. Hence, it is important and our goal to study the consistency between single sensors in order to develop long and consistent time series. Here, the consistency between freeboard measurements of the Radar Altimeter 2 on board Envisat and freeboard measurements from the SyntheticAperture Interferometric Radar Altimeter on board CryoSat-2 is tested for their overlap period in 2011. Results indicate that mean and modal values are in reasonable agreement over the sea-ice growth season (May-October) and partly also beyond. In general, Envisat data show higher freeboards in the first-year ice zone while CryoSat-2 freeboards are higher in the multiyear ice zone and near the coasts. This has consequences for the agreement in individual sectors of the Southern Ocean, where one or the other ice class may dominate. Nevertheless, over the growth season, mean freeboard for the entire (regionally separated) Southern Ocean differs generally by not more than 3 cm (8 cm, with few exceptions) between Envisat and CryoSat-2, and the differences between modal freeboards lie generally within ±10 cm and often even below.
Radar altimetry measurements of the current satellite mission CryoSat‐2 show an increase of Arctic sea ice thickness in autumn 2013, compared to previous years but also related to March 2013. Such an increase over the melting season seems unlikely and needs to be investigated. Recent studies show that the influence of the snow cover is not negligible and can highly affect the CryoSat‐2 range retrievals if it is assumed that the main scattering horizon is given by the snow‐ice interface. Our analysis of Arctic ice mass balance buoy records and coincident CryoSat‐2 data between 2012 and 2014 adds observational evidence to these findings. Linear trends of snow and ice freeboard measurements from buoys and nearby CryoSat‐2 freeboard retrievals are calculated during accumulation events. We find a positive correlation between buoy snow freeboard and CryoSat‐2 freeboard estimates, revealing that early snow accumulation might have caused a bias in CryoSat‐2 sea ice thickness in autumn 2013.
Satellite radar altimeters have improved our knowledge of Arctic sea ice thickness over the past decade. The main sources of uncertainty in sea ice thickness retrievals are associated with inadequate knowledge of the snow layer depth and the radar interaction with the snow pack. Here we adapt a method of deriving sea ice freeboard from CryoSat‐2 to data from the AltiKa Ka band radar altimeter over the 2013–14 Arctic sea ice growth season. AltiKa measures basin‐averaged freeboards between 4.4 cm and 6.9 cm larger than CryoSat‐2 in October and March, respectively. Using airborne laser and radar measurements from spring 2013 and 2014, we estimate the effective scattering horizon for each sensor. While CryoSat‐2 echoes penetrate to the ice surface over first‐year ice and penetrate the majority (82 ± 3%) of the snow layer over multiyear ice, AltiKa echoes are scattered from roughly the midpoint (46 ± 5%) of the snow layer over both ice types.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.