scholarly journals Retrieval and parametrisation of sea-ice bulk density from airborne multi-sensor measurements

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arttu Jutila ◽  
Stefan Hendricks ◽  
Robert Ricker ◽  
Luisa von Albedyll ◽  
Thomas Krumpen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Bulk Density ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
First Year ◽  
Exponential Relationship ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Abstract Knowledge ◽  
Negative Exponential ◽  
The Impact

Abstract. Knowledge of sea-ice thickness and volume depends on freeboard observations from satellite altimeters and in turn on information of snow mass and sea-ice density required for the freeboard-to-thickness conversion. These parameters, especially sea-ice density, are usually based on climatologies constructed from in situ observations made in the 1980s and before while contemporary and representative measurements are lacking. Our aim with this paper is to derive updated sea-ice bulk density estimates suitable for the present Arctic sea-ice cover and a range of ice types to reduce uncertainties in sea-ice thickness remote sensing. Our sea-ice density measurements are based on over 3000 km of high-resolution collocated airborne sea-ice and snow thickness and freeboard measurements in 2017 and 2019. Sea-ice bulk density is derived assuming isostatic equilibrium for different ice types. Our results show higher average bulk densities for both first-year ice (FYI) and especially multi-year ice (MYI) compared to previous studies. In addition, we find a small difference between deformed and possibly unconsolidated FYI and younger MYI. We find a negative-exponential relationship between sea-ice bulk density and sea-ice freeboard and apply this parametrisation to one winter of monthly gridded CryoSat-2 sea-ice freeboard data. We discuss the suitability and the impact of the derived FYI and MYI bulk densities for sea-ice thickness retrievals and the uncertainty related to the indirect method of measuring sea-ice bulk density. The results suggest that retrieval algorithms be adapted to changes in sea-ice density and highlight the need of future studies to evaluate the impact of density parametrisation on the full sea-ice thickness data record.

scholarly journals New insight from CryoSat-2 sea ice thickness for sea ice modelling

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Schröder ◽  
Danny L. Feltham ◽  
Michel Tsamados ◽  
Andy Ridout ◽  
Rachel Tilling
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Thickness Distribution ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Atmospheric Conditions ◽  
Sea Ice Concentration ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Ice Growth ◽  
Melt Pond ◽  
The Impact

Abstract. Estimates of Arctic sea ice thickness are available from the CryoSat-2 (CS2) radar altimetry mission during ice growth seasons since 2010. We derive the sub-grid scale ice thickness distribution (ITD) with respect to 5 ice thickness categories used in a sea ice component (CICE) of climate simulations. This allows us to initialize the ITD in stand-alone simulations with CICE and to verify the simulated cycle of ice thickness. We find that a default CICE simulation strongly underestimates ice thickness, despite reproducing the inter-annual variability of summer sea ice extent. We can identify the underestimation of winter ice growth as being responsible and show that increasing the ice conductive flux for lower temperatures (bubbly brine scheme) and accounting for the loss of drifting snow results in the simulated sea ice growth being more realistic. Sensitivity studies provide insight into the impact of initial and atmospheric conditions and, thus, on the role of positive and negative feedback processes. During summer, atmospheric conditions are responsible for 50 % of September sea ice thickness variability through the positive sea ice and melt pond albedo feedback. However, atmospheric winter conditions have little impact on winter ice growth due to the dominating negative conductive feedback process: the thinner the ice and snow in autumn, the stronger the ice growth in winter. We conclude that the fate of Arctic summer sea ice is largely controlled by atmospheric conditions during the melting season rather than by winter temperature. Our optimal model configuration does not only improve the simulated sea ice thickness, but also summer sea ice concentration, melt pond fraction, and length of the melt season. It is the first time CS2 sea ice thickness data have been applied successfully to improve sea ice model physics.

scholarly journals Suppression of Arctic sea ice growth by winter clouds and snowfall

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Won-il Lim ◽  
Hyo-Seok Park ◽  
Andrew Stewart ◽  
Kyong-Hwan Seo
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Longwave Radiation ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Ice Growth ◽  
Downward Longwave Radiation ◽  
Arctic Sea ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The ongoing Arctic warming has been pronounced in winter and has been associated with an increase in downward longwave radiation. While previous studies have demonstrated that poleward moisture flux into the Arctic strengthens downward longwave radiation, less attention has been given to the impact of the accompanying increase in snowfall. Here, utilizing state-of-the art sea ice models, we show that typical winter snowfall anomalies of 1.0 cm, accompanied by positive downward longwave radiation anomalies of ~5 W m-2 can decrease sea ice thickness by around 5 cm in the following spring over the Eurasian Seas. This basin-wide ice thinning is followed by a shrinking of summer ice extent in extreme cases. In the winter of 2016–17, anomalously strong warm/moist air transport combined with ~2.5 cm increase in snowfall decreased spring ice thickness by ~10 cm and decreased the following summer sea ice extent by 5–30%. Projected future reductions in the thickness of Arctic sea ice and snow will amplify the impact of anomalous winter snowfall events on winter sea ice growth and seasonal sea ice thickness.

scholarly journals Simulated Ka- and Ku-band radar altimeter height and freeboard estimation on snow-covered Arctic sea ice

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 1811-1822
Author(s):  
Rasmus T. Tonboe ◽  
Vishnu Nandan ◽  
John Yackel ◽  
Stefan Kern ◽  
Leif Toudal Pedersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Snow Depth ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Radar Altimeter ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Scattering Model ◽  
Radar Scattering ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Ku Band

Abstract. Owing to differing and complex snow geophysical properties, radar waves of different wavelengths undergo variable penetration through snow-covered sea ice. However, the mechanisms influencing radar altimeter backscatter from snow-covered sea ice, especially at Ka- and Ku-band frequencies, and the impact on the Ka- and Ku-band radar scattering horizon or the “track point” (i.e. the scattering layer depth detected by the radar re-tracker) are not well understood. In this study, we evaluate the Ka- and Ku-band radar scattering horizon with respect to radar penetration and ice floe buoyancy using a first-order scattering model and the Archimedes principle. The scattering model is forced with snow depth data from the European Space Agency (ESA) climate change initiative (CCI) round-robin data package, in which NASA's Operation IceBridge (OIB) data and climatology are included, and detailed snow geophysical property profiles from the Canadian Arctic. Our simulations demonstrate that the Ka- and Ku-band track point difference is a function of snow depth; however, the simulated track point difference is much smaller than what is reported in the literature from the Ku-band CryoSat-2 and Ka-band SARAL/AltiKa satellite radar altimeter observations. We argue that this discrepancy in the Ka- and Ku-band track point differences is sensitive to ice type and snow depth and its associated geophysical properties. Snow salinity is first increasing the Ka- and Ku-band track point difference when the snow is thin and then decreasing the difference when the snow is thick (>0.1 m). A relationship between the Ku-band radar scattering horizon and snow depth is found. This relationship has implications for (1) the use of snow climatology in the conversion of radar freeboard into sea ice thickness and (2) the impact of variability in measured snow depth on the derived ice thickness. For both (1) and (2), the impact of using a snow climatology versus the actual snow depth is relatively small on the radar freeboard, only raising the radar freeboard by 0.03 times the climatological snow depth plus 0.03 times the real snow depth. The radar freeboard is a function of both radar scattering and floe buoyancy. This study serves to enhance our understanding of microwave interactions towards improved accuracy of snow depth and sea ice thickness retrievals via the combination of the currently operational and ESA's forthcoming Ka- and Ku-band dual-frequency CRISTAL radar altimeter missions.

Sea ice representation in CMIP6 simulations with EC-Earth3-Veg

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torben Koenigk ◽  
Evelien Dekker
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Emission Scenario ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
First Year ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Sea Ice Extent ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Arctic Sea

<p>In this study, we compare the sea ice in ensembles of historical and future simulations with EC-Earth3-Veg to the sea ice of the NSIDC and OSA-SAF satellite data sets. The EC-Earth3-Veg Arctic sea ice extent generally matches well to the observational data sets, and the trend over 1980-2014 is captured correctly. Interestingly, the summer Arctic sea ice area minimum occurs already in August in the model. Mainly east of Greenland, sea ice area is overestimated. In summer, Arctic sea ice is too thick compared to PIOMAS. In March, sea ice thickness is slightly overestimated in the Central Arctic but in the Bering and Kara Seas, the ice thickness is lower than in PIOMAS.</p><p>While the general picture of Arctic sea ice looks good, EC-Earth suffers from a warm bias in the Southern Ocean. This is also reflected by a substantial underestimation of sea ice area in the Antarctic.</p><p>Different ensemble members of the future scenario projections of sea ice show a large range of the date of first year with a minimum ice area below 1 million square kilometers in the Arctic. The year varies between 2024 and 2056. Interestingly, this range does not differ very much with the emission scenario and even under the low emission scenario SSP1-1.9 summer Arctic sea ice almost totally disappears.</p>

scholarly journals Impact of sea-ice thickness initialized in April on Arctic sea-ice extent predictability with the MIROC climate model

2020 ◽  
Vol 61 (82) ◽  
pp. 97-105
Author(s):  
Jun Ono ◽  
Yoshiki Komuro ◽  
Hiroaki Tatebe
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Concentration ◽  
Sea Ice Extent ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Predictive Skill ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThe impact of April sea-ice thickness (SIT) initialization on the predictability of September sea-ice extent (SIE) is investigated based on a series of perfect model ensemble experiments using the MIROC5.2 climate model. Ensembles with April SIT initialization can accurately predict the September SIE for greater lead times than in cases without the initialization – up to 2 years ahead. The persistence of SIT correctly initialized in April contributes to the skilful prediction of SIE in the first September. On the other hand, errors in the initialization of SIT in April cause errors in the predicted sea-ice concentration and thickness in the Pacific sector from July to September and consequently influence the predictive skill with respect to SIE in September. The present study suggests that initialization of the April SIT in the Pacific sector significantly improves the accuracy of the September SIE forecasts by decreasing the errors in sea-ice fields from July to September.

scholarly journals Simulated Ka- and Ku-band radar altimeter scattering horizon on snow-covered Arctic sea ice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rasmus T. Tonboe ◽  
Vishnu Nandan ◽  
John Yackel ◽  
Stefan Kern ◽  
Leif Toudal Pedersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Snow Depth ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Radar Altimeter ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Scattering Model ◽  
Radar Scattering ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Ku Band

Abstract. Owing to differing and complex snow geophysical properties, radar waves of different wavelengths undergo variable penetration through snow-covered sea ice. However, the mechanisms influencing radar altimeter backscatter from snow-covered sea ice, especially at Ka- and Ku-band frequencies, and its impact on the Ka- and Ku-band radar scattering horizon or the "track point" (i.e. the scattering layer depth detected by the radar re-tracker), are not well understood. In this study, we evaluate the Ka- and Ku-band radar scattering horizon with respect to radar penetration and ice floe buoyancy using a first-order scattering model and Archimedes’ principle. The scattering model is forced with snow depth data from the European Space Agency (ESA) climate change initiative (CCI) round robin data package, NASA’s Operation Ice Bridge (OIB) data and climatology, and detailed snow geophysical property profiles from the Canadian Arctic. Our simulations demonstrate that the Ka- and Ku-band track point difference is a function of snow depth, however, the simulated track point difference is much smaller than what is reported in the literature from the CryoSat-2 Ku-band and SARAL/AltiKa Ka-band satellite radar altimeter observations. We argue that this discrepancy in the Ka- and Ku-band track point differences are sensitive to ice type and snow depth and its associated geophysical properties. Snow salinity is first increasing the Ka- and Ku-band track-point difference when the snow is thin and then decreasing the difference when the snow is thick (> 10 cm). A relationship between the Ku-band radar scattering horizon and snow depth is found. This relationship has implications for 1) the use of snow climatology in the conversion of radar freeboard into sea ice thickness and 2) the impact of variability in measured snow depth on the derived ice thickness. For both 1 and 2, the impact of using a snow climatology versus the actual snow depth is relatively small on the measured freeboard, by only raising the measured freeboard by 0.03 times the climatological snow depth plus 0.03 times the real snow depth. This study serves to enhance our understanding of microwave interactions towards improved accuracy of snow depth and sea ice thickness retrievals from combining currently operational and upcoming Ka- and Ku-band dual-frequency radar altimeter missions, such as ESA’s Copernicus High Priority Candidate Mission CRISTAL.

scholarly journals Improving Met Office seasonal predictions of Arctic sea ice using assimilation of CryoSat-2 thickness

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 3419-3438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward W. Blockley ◽  
K. Andrew Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Ice Cover ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Forecast Errors ◽  
Sea Ice Concentration ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Near Surface ◽  
Arctic Sea ◽  
The Impact

Abstract. Interest in seasonal predictions of Arctic sea ice has been increasing in recent years owing, primarily, to the sharp reduction in Arctic sea-ice cover observed over the last few decades, a decline that is projected to continue. The prospect of increased human industrial activity in the region, as well as scientific interest in the predictability of sea ice, provides important motivation for understanding, and improving, the skill of Arctic predictions. Several operational forecasting centres now routinely produce seasonal predictions of sea-ice cover using coupled atmosphere–ocean–sea-ice models. Although assimilation of sea-ice concentration into these systems is commonplace, sea-ice thickness observations, being much less mature, are typically not assimilated. However, many studies suggest that initialization of winter sea-ice thickness could lead to improved prediction of Arctic summer sea ice. Here, for the first time, we directly assess the impact of winter sea-ice thickness initialization on the skill of summer seasonal predictions by assimilating CryoSat-2 thickness data into the Met Office's coupled seasonal prediction system (GloSea). We show a significant improvement in predictive skill of Arctic sea-ice extent and ice-edge location for forecasts of September Arctic sea ice made from the beginning of the melt season. The improvements in sea-ice cover lead to further improvement of near-surface air temperature and pressure fields across the region. A clear relationship between modelled winter thickness biases and summer extent errors is identified which supports the theory that Arctic winter thickness provides some predictive capability for summer ice extent, and further highlights the importance that modelled winter thickness biases can have on the evolution of forecast errors through the melt season.

scholarly journals Analyzing the impact of CryoSat-2 ice thickness initialization on seasonal Arctic Sea Ice prediction

2020 ◽  
Vol 61 (82) ◽  
pp. 78-85
Author(s):  
Richard Allard ◽  
E. Joseph Metzger ◽  
Neil Barton ◽  
Li Li ◽  
Nathan Kurtz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
Global Ocean ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Ensemble Forecasts ◽  
Sea Ice Extent ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Forecasting System ◽  
Ocean Forecasting ◽  
The Impact

AbstractTwin 5-month seasonal forecast experiments are performed to predict the September 2018 mean and minimum ice extent using the fully coupled Navy Earth System Prediction Capability (ESPC). In the control run, ensemble forecasts are initialized from the operational US Navy Global Ocean Forecasting System (GOFS) 3.1 but do not assimilate ice thickness data. Another set of forecasts are initialized from the same GOFS 3.1 fields but with sea ice thickness derived from CryoSat-2 (CS2). The Navy ESPC ensemble mean September 2018 minimum sea ice extent initialized with GOFS 3.1 ice thickness was over-predicted by 0.68 M km2 (5.27 M km2) vs the ensemble forecasts initialized with CS2 ice thickness that had an error of 0.40 M km2 (4.99 M km2), a 43% reduction in error. The September mean integrated ice edge error shows a 18% improvement for the Pan-Arctic with the CS2 data vs the control forecasts. Comparison against upward looking sonar ice thickness in the Beaufort Sea reveals a lower bias and RMSE with the CS2 forecasts at all three moorings. Ice concentration at these locations is also improved, but neither set of forecasts show ice free conditions as observed at moorings A and D.

scholarly journals On retrieving sea ice freeboard from ICESat laser altimeter

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirill Khvorostovsky ◽  
Pierre Rampal
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Sea Level ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
First Year ◽  
Laser Altimeter ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Along Track

Abstract. Sea ice freeboard derived from satellite altimetry is the basis for estimation of sea ice thickness using the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium. High accuracy of altimeter measurements and freeboard retrieval procedure are therefore required. As of today, two approaches for estimation of the freeboard using laser altimeter measurements from Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat), referred to as tie-points (TP) and lowest-level elevation (LLE) methods, have been developed and applied in different studies. We reproduced these methods in order to assess and analyze the sources of differences found in the retrieved freeboard and corresponding thickness estimates of the Arctic sea ice as produced by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). For the ICEsat observation periods (2003–2008) it is found that when applying the same along-track averaging scales in the two methods to calculate the local sea level references the LLE method gives significantly lower (by up to 15 cm) sea ice freeboard estimates over thick multi-year ice areas, but significantly larger estimates (by 3–5 cm in average and locally up to about 10 cm) over thin first-year ice areas, as compared to the TP method. However, we show that the difference over first-year ice areas can be reduced to less than 2 cm when using the improved TP method proposed in this paper. About 4 cm of the difference in the JPL and GSFC freeboard estimates can be attributed to the different along-track averaging scales used to calculate the local sea level references. We show that the effect of applying corrections for lead width relative to the ICESat footprint, and for snow depth accumulated in refrozen leads (as it is done for the last release of the JPL product), is very large and increase freeboard estimates by about 7 cm. Thus, the different along-track averaging scales and approaches to calculate sea surface references, from one side, and the freeboard adjustments as applied in the TP method used to produce the JPL dataset, from the other side, are roughly compensating each other with respect to freeboard estimation. Therefore the difference in the mean sea ice thickness found between the JPL and GSFC datasets should be attributed to different parameters used in the freeboard-to-thickness conversion.

scholarly journals New insight from CryoSat-2 sea ice thickness for sea ice modelling

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Schröder ◽  
Danny L. Feltham ◽  
Michel Tsamados ◽  
Andy Ridout ◽  
Rachel Tilling
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Thickness Distribution ◽  
Arctic Sea Ice ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Atmospheric Conditions ◽  
Component Community ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Ice Growth ◽  
Melt Pond ◽  
The Impact

Abstract. Estimates of Arctic sea ice thickness have been available from the CryoSat-2 (CS2) radar altimetry mission during ice growth seasons since 2010. We derive the sub-grid-scale ice thickness distribution (ITD) with respect to five ice thickness categories used in a sea ice component (Community Ice CodE, CICE) of climate simulations. This allows us to initialize the ITD in stand-alone simulations with CICE and to verify the simulated cycle of ice thickness. We find that a default CICE simulation strongly underestimates ice thickness, despite reproducing the inter-annual variability of summer sea ice extent. We can identify the underestimation of winter ice growth as being responsible and show that increasing the ice conductive flux for lower temperatures (bubbly brine scheme) and accounting for the loss of drifting snow results in the simulated sea ice growth being more realistic. Sensitivity studies provide insight into the impact of initial and atmospheric conditions and, thus, on the role of positive and negative feedback processes. During summer, atmospheric conditions are responsible for 50 % of September sea ice thickness variability through the positive sea ice and melt pond albedo feedback. However, atmospheric winter conditions have little impact on winter ice growth due to the dominating negative conductive feedback process: the thinner the ice and snow in autumn, the stronger the ice growth in winter. We conclude that the fate of Arctic summer sea ice is largely controlled by atmospheric conditions during the melting season rather than by winter temperature. Our optimal model configuration does not only improve the simulated sea ice thickness, but also summer sea ice concentration, melt pond fraction, and length of the melt season. It is the first time CS2 sea ice thickness data have been applied successfully to improve sea ice model physics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document