Next Article in Journal
Cloud Detection for High-Resolution Satellite Imagery Using Machine Learning and Multi-Feature Fusion
Previous Article in Journal
Diel and Spatial Dependence of Humpback Song and Non-Song Vocalizations in Fish Spawning Ground
Previous Article in Special Issue
Arctic Sea Ice Thickness Estimation from CryoSat-2 Satellite Data Using Machine Learning-Based Lead Detection
Article

Comparison of Arctic Sea Ice Thickness from Satellites, Aircraft, and PIOMAS Data

1
Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies (CIMSS)/Space Science and Engineering Center (SSEC), UW-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA
2
Center for Satellite Applications and Research, NOAA/NESDIS, Madison, WI 53706, USA
3
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA
4
Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, 1013 NE 40th St., Seattle, WA 98105, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Walt Meier, Mark Tschudi, Magaly Koch and Prasad S. Thenkabail
Remote Sens. 2016, 8(9), 713; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8090713
Received: 31 March 2016 / Revised: 20 August 2016 / Accepted: 25 August 2016 / Published: 30 August 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sea Ice Remote Sensing and Analysis)
In this study, six Arctic sea ice thickness products are compared: the AVHRR Polar Pathfinder-extended (APP-x), ICESat, CryoSat-2, SMOS, NASA IceBridge aircraft flights, and the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS). The satellite products are based on three different retrieval methods: an energy budget approach, measurements of ice freeboard, and the relationship between passive microwave brightness temperatures and thin ice thickness. Inter-comparisons are done for the periods of overlap from 2003 to 2013. Results show that ICESat sea ice is thicker than APP-x and PIOMAS overall, particularly along the north coast of Greenland and Canadian Archipelago. The relative differences of APP-x and PIOMAS with ICESat are −0.48 m and −0.31 m, respectively. APP-x underestimates thickness relative to CryoSat-2, with a mean difference of −0.19 m. The biases for APP-x, PIOMAS, and CryoSat-2 relative to IceBridge thicknesses are 0.18 m, 0.18 m, and 0.29 m. The mean difference between SMOS and CryoSat-2 for 0~1 m thick ice is 0.13 m in March and −0.24 m in October. All satellite-retrieved ice thickness products and PIOMAS overestimate the thickness of thin ice (1 m or less) compared to IceBridge for which SMOS has the smallest bias (0.26 m). The spatial correlation between the datasets indicates that APP-x and PIOMAS are the most similar, followed by APP-x and CryoSat-2. View Full-Text
Keywords: sea ice thickness; Arctic; remote sensing; satellite; ICESat; CryoSat-2; SMOS; IceBridge; PIOMAS; APP-x sea ice thickness; Arctic; remote sensing; satellite; ICESat; CryoSat-2; SMOS; IceBridge; PIOMAS; APP-x
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, X.; Key, J.; Kwok, R.; Zhang, J. Comparison of Arctic Sea Ice Thickness from Satellites, Aircraft, and PIOMAS Data. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 713. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8090713

AMA Style

Wang X, Key J, Kwok R, Zhang J. Comparison of Arctic Sea Ice Thickness from Satellites, Aircraft, and PIOMAS Data. Remote Sensing. 2016; 8(9):713. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8090713

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Xuanji, Jeffrey Key, Ron Kwok, and Jinlun Zhang. 2016. "Comparison of Arctic Sea Ice Thickness from Satellites, Aircraft, and PIOMAS Data" Remote Sensing 8, no. 9: 713. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8090713

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop