Comparison of Arctic Sea Ice Concentrations from the NASA Team, ASI, and VASIA2 Algorithms with Summer and Winter Ship Data

The paper presents a comparison of sea ice concentration (SIC) derived from satellite microwave radiometry data and dedicated ship observations. For the purpose, the NASA Team (NT), Arctic Radiation and Turbulence Interaction Study (ARTIST) Sea Ice (ASI), and Variation Arctic/Antarctic Sea Ice Algor...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Remote Sensing
Main Authors: Tatiana Alekseeva, Vasiliy Tikhonov, Sergei Frolov, Irina Repina, Mikhael Raev, Julia Sokolova, Evgeniy Sharkov, Ekaterina Afanasieva, Sergei Serovetnikov
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2019
Subjects:
arctic
satellite microwave radiometry
algorithms
ship-based visual observations
sea ice concentration
ice melt
Science
Q
Antarctic
Arctic
Antarc*
Sea ice
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11212481
https://doaj.org/article/72075aec329c429885548030aead9568
Description
Summary:The paper presents a comparison of sea ice concentration (SIC) derived from satellite microwave radiometry data and dedicated ship observations. For the purpose, the NASA Team (NT), Arctic Radiation and Turbulence Interaction Study (ARTIST) Sea Ice (ASI), and Variation Arctic/Antarctic Sea Ice Algorithm 2 (VASIA2) algorithms were used as well as the database of visual ice observations accumulated in the course of 15 Arctic expeditions. The comparison was performed in line with the SIC gradation (in tenths) into very open (1−3), open (4−6), close (7−8), very close and compact (9−10,10) ice, separately for summer and winter seasons. On average, in summer NT underestimates SIC by 0.4 tenth as compared to ship observations, while ASI and VASIA2 by 0.3 tenth. All three algorithms overestimate total SIC in regions of very open ice and underestimate it in regions of close, very close, and compact ice. The maximum average errors are typical of open ice regions that are most common in marginal ice zones. In winter, NT and ASI also underestimate SIC on average by 0.4 and 0.8 tenths, respectively, while VASIA2, on the contrary, overestimates by 0.2 tenth against the ship data, however, for open and close ice the average errors are significantly higher than in summer. In the paper, we also estimate the impact of ice melt stage and presence of new ice and nilas on SIC derived from NT, ASI, and VASIA2.

Similar Items