That comparison video is pretty awesome Uniquorn. Thanks for that! It does show that HYCOM is doing a pretty good job on the ice movement. The only question that remains is if they're right about ice thickness. The difference between HYCOM and the satellite measurements is huge. But somehow I still trust HYCOM more than the measurements, which is probably not reasonable... I guess we'll just have to run out the season to see if HYCOM had it right...
EDIT: I think you could also interpret HYCOM thick ice as being older, and thus stronger ice? What do you think? Could that be a thing?
EDIT2: Is it possible that satellite measurements get screwed up because of older ice with a different density, and thus a different reflectability?
The only question? I think not
For me the models are an aid to knowing what is happening rather than being 'right' about anything.
Older ice: Specificly I have a doubt about HYCOM thickness in the area between the pole and FJL in March which familiarity with ASCAT tells me is second year ice. I don't use ASCAT for estimating thickness, just for knowing roughly where ice came from but I think we have just seen some thicker ice come through the Fram which probably came from pole/FJL area. I haven't thoroughly tracked it so no strong opinion on that.
Satellites: That data requires interpretation too, that's why it's great that Lars Kaleschke posted asking for feedback on the forum for his next AMSR2 product. So yes, many things need to be checked in the lab and on the ice with local measurements but these are often few and very far between.
Even when we have buoys actually in the ice measuring thickness the data still needs interpretation and possibly debate. Very little interest in that...
Some Chukchi and Beaufort melt should be coming up soon. More opportunity to see if any model or satellite is near to 'right' . In my view no satellite or model knows how thick most of the ice is. That's partly why it is so interesting.