Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: PIOMAS vs CryoSat  (Read 147577 times)

A-Team

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2399
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 282
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #300 on: March 08, 2018, 04:01:38 PM »
Quote
CyroSat-2 does not measure snow depth
CryoSat-2 seeks to determine the freeboard of floating ice. The primary instrument is a synthetic aperture interferometric X-band radar altimeter. Precise altimetry alone has been found not to give accurate ice thickness -- hence the other 31 companion files (such as ice density) in the netCDF under discussion.

These are not taken from generic FYI/MYI climatology, as follows already from the map mismatch with snow depth and density (and good agreement with precip-modeled RASM-ESRL). Here we can benefit from recent papers such as:

Effect of Snow Salinity on CryoSat-2 Arctic First-Year Sea Ice Freeboard Measurements
V Nandan et al
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL074506/full

A weekly Arctic sea-ice thickness data record from merged CryoSat-2 and SMOS satellite data
R Ricker et al
https://www.the-cryosphere.net/11/1607/2017/
https://www.ifm.uni-hamburg.de/en/institute/staff/kaleschke/publicationskaleschke.html

Thin Sea Ice, Thick Snow, and Widespread Negative Freeboard Observed During N-ICE2015
A Rösel et al
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017JC012865/full

Note the radar reflection horizon is not necessarily the top surface of the ice nor the top surface of the snow. Locally, there may have been extruded or deposited brine salinity, snow on refrozen rain on snow, or snow melt in the dead of winter from advected semi-tropical moisture and abnormal temperatures.

Whatever, it adds to the mass afloat, though snow (granulated ice) lacks other mechanical, thermal, dynamical and volumetric properties of ice. We are not after freeboard per se but a more nuanced understanding of the heterogeneously distributed composite out there.

The question here is where does this netCDF file get its snow depth, snow depth uncertainty, snow density, snow density uncertainty from and how good are they. It is a near-real time winter product under active development, not a static journal article.

In the meantime, the companion files themselves are instructive even though we don't have a lot of people here who will click on them. The two uncertainty maps are shown below:
« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 04:19:18 PM by A-Team »

Michael

  • New ice
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #301 on: March 08, 2018, 04:29:27 PM »
Quote
CyroSat-2 does not measure snow depth
The question here is where does this netCDF file get its snow depth, snow depth uncertainty, snow density, snow density uncertainty from and how good are they. It is a near-real time winter product under active development, not a static journal article.
From the netCDF file data header:
source_auxdata_snow = "Warren, S.G., Rigor, I.G., Untersteiner, N., Radionov, V.F., Bryazgin, N.N., Aleksandrov, Y.I., and Colony, R.. Snow depth on Arctic sea ice. Journal of Climate, 12, 1814-1829, 1999"

Wipneus

  • Citizen scientist
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3996
    • View Profile
    • Arctische Pinguin
  • Liked: 619
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #302 on: May 26, 2018, 03:31:32 PM »
In case you wondered like me why Cryosat-2 does not seem to be used to estimate Antarctic Sea Ice thickness, the following new (discussion) paper is of interest.

Kwok, R. and Kacimi, S.: Three years of sea ice freeboard, snow depth, and ice thickness of the Weddell Sea from Operation IceBridge and CryoSat-2, The Cryosphere Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2018-98, in review, 2018.

The abstract:
Quote
We examine the variability of sea ice freeboard, snow depth, and ice thickness in three years (2011, 2014, and 2016) of repeat surveys of an IceBridge (OIB) transect across the Weddell Sea. Averaged over this transect, ice thickness ranges from 2.4 ± 1.07 (2011) to 2.60 ± 1.15 m (2014), and snow depth from 30.0 ± 8.51 (2016) to 43.6 ± 10.2 cm (2014); suggesting a highly variable but broadly thicker ice cover compared to that inferred from drilling and ship-based measurements. Spatially, snow depth and ice thickness are higher in the more deformed ice of the western Weddell. Radar freeboards (uncompensated for snow thickness) from CryoSat-2 (CS-2), sampled along the same transect, are consistently higher (by up to 8 cm) than those computed using OIB data. This suggests radar scattering that originates above the snow-ice interface, possibly due to salinity in the basal layer of the snow column. Consequently, sea ice thickness computed using snow depth estimates solely from differencing OIB and CS-2 freeboards (without snow radar) are therefore general higher; mean differences in sea ice thickness along a transect are up to ~ 0.6 m higher (in 2014). This analysis is relevant to the use of differences between ICESat-2 and CS-2 freeboards to estimate snow depth for ice sea thickness calculations. Our analysis also suggests that, even with these expected biases, this is an improvement over the assumption that snow depth is equal to the total freeboard, where the underestimation of thickness could be up to a meter. Importantly, better characterization of the source of these biases is critical for obtaining improved estimates and understanding limits of retrievals of Weddell Sea ice thickness from satellite altimeters.

Reducing a bias from 1m to 60cm might have something to do with it.

The paper is in discussion until 20th July. The discussion can be followed on the link above, so far no comments have appeared.

Wipneus

  • Citizen scientist
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3996
    • View Profile
    • Arctische Pinguin
  • Liked: 619
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #303 on: May 28, 2018, 04:32:59 PM »
In the same magazine another discussion paper focusing uncertainty in deriving thickness from Cryosat-2 measured free-board.

Price, D., Soltanzadeh, I., and Rack, W.: Snow depth uncertainty and its implications on satellite derived Antarctic sea ice thickness, The Cryosphere Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2018-92, in review, 2018.


The abstract:
Quote
Knowledge of the snow depth distribution on Antarctic sea ice is poor but is critical to obtaining sea ice thickness from satellite altimetry measurements of freeboard. We examine the usefulness of various snow products to provide snow depth information over Antarctic fast ice with a focus on a novel approach using a high-resolution numerical snow accumulation model (SnowModel). We compare this model to results from ECMWF ERA-Interim precipitation, EOS Aqua AMSR-E passive microwave snow depths and in situ measurements at the end of the sea ice growth season. The fast ice was segmented into three areas by fastening date and the onset of snow accumulation was calibrated to these dates. SnowModel falls within 0.02 m snow water equivalent (swe) of in situ measurements across the entire study area, but exhibits deviations of 0.05 m swe from these measurements in the east where large topographic features appear to have caused a positive bias in snow depth. AMSR-E provides swe values half that of SnowModel for the majority of the sea ice growth season. The coarser resolution ERA-Interim, not segmented for sea ice freeze up area reveals a mean swe value 0.01 m higher than in situ measurements. These various snow datasets and in situ information are used to infer sea ice thickness in combination with CryoSat-2 (CS-2) freeboard data. CS-2 is capable of capturing the seasonal trend of sea ice freeboard growth but thickness results are highly dependent on the assumptions involved in separating snow and ice freeboard. With various assumptions about the radar penetration into the snow cover, the sea ice thickness estimates vary by up to 2 m. However, we find the best agreement between CS-2 derived and in situ thickness when a radar penetration of 0.05-0.10 m into the snow cover is assumed.

"thickness estimates vary by up to 2 m.", that is hardly trivial.

The paper is in discussion until 23th July. The discussion can be followed on the link above, so far no comments have appeared.

Steven

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 129
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #304 on: November 07, 2018, 06:46:39 PM »
There's a comparison of PIOMAS and CryoSat data for October 2018 at the PIOMAS website:

http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

Quote
Ice thickness anomalies anomalies 2018 relative to 2011-2017 (Fig 6)  show widespread negative anomalies and with thicker than normal ice only in the eastern Beaufort Sea.  Thick ice in this area is to anomalous ice motion over the last 4 month that pushed sea ice against Banks Island and the western part of the Canadian Archipelago (Fig 7). This thickness anomaly pattern is supported by CryoSat thickness anomalies using the new version 2.1 from AWI. CryoSat thickness anomalies (Fig 9) are similar to PIOMAS but there are substantial differences in the Lincoln Sea and North of Fram Strait where CryoSat has positive anomalies.  PIOMAS and CryoSat time series for October times series show little further decline in October sea ice volume since the exceptionally low values first seen in  2011 and 2012 (Figure 10).

PIOMAS:

CryoSat:


oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4467
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1286
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #305 on: November 07, 2018, 09:48:41 PM »
I must say the agreement is rather good in terms of the location of high and low volume anomaly areas, except in the (important) region between the pole and Greenland/CAA.

shendric

  • New ice
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #306 on: November 08, 2018, 10:19:41 AM »
Just to let you know that the AWI CryoSat-2 data service has been resumed in the past days as can be seen by the PIOMAS - CryoSat-2 figures above. The CryoSat-2 sea ice thickness algorithm has been updated to version 2.1 with a number of changes:

  • Improved snow information for regions outside the central Arctic Ocean
  • new options for automated analysis (NSIDC region codes in gridded and orbit data
  • improved uncertainty for gridded sea ice thickness

We have also added online documentation and anonymous ftp access, you can find the necessary information here:

AWI CryoSat-2 wiki

Whats new in version 2.1


ftp://ftp.awi.de/sea_ice/product/cryosat2/v2p1/nh/

Cheers, Stefan

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 713
  • Likes Given: 467
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #307 on: November 08, 2018, 10:24:33 AM »
Thanks, Stefan!
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 713
  • Likes Given: 467
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #308 on: February 10, 2019, 07:17:02 PM »
Maybe something interesting is going on again on this front. CryoSat-2 has ice thicker than 2011-2018 baseline north of Greenland and CAA, PIOMAS has it thinner.

I'll write about this in the next ASIB PIOMAS update. Anyone have any ideas what could be causing this? Another snow issue?
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

epiphyte

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 383
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #309 on: February 12, 2019, 03:31:17 AM »
Wildly uninformed speculation - but there has on and off been a large amount of open water in that area this winter. I've always wondered whether Cryosat might be prone to overestimate the average thickness of ice in fluid areas which have been subject to upheaval / repeated opening of wide polynyas followed by re-compaction of the thin ice formed on top of them during the hard winter. This might lead to a very non-uniform surface with sharp, high peaks and deep, snow-filled troughs.

Conversely, PIOMAS might underestimate the volume under such circumstances if it underestimates the area of open water and the faster rate at which it freezes vs. a uniform-thickness ice sheet.

Don't know if that's even $0.02 worth, of course :)


Tealight

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
    • CryosphereComputing
  • Liked: 133
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #310 on: February 12, 2019, 10:58:59 AM »
Well this region has been very cold this winter, but we can only guess if this has translated into extra thickness. From Lebedev ice growth formula we know that sea ice over 2m grows very slowly no matter how cold the air is.

All I know for sure is that my AMSR2 thickness is high as well, but it is definitely affected by snow.

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3024
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #311 on: February 13, 2019, 04:15:21 AM »
Well this region has been very cold this winter, but we can only guess if this has translated into extra thickness. From Lebedev ice growth formula we know that sea ice over 2m grows very slowly no matter how cold the air is.

All I know for sure is that my AMSR2 thickness is high as well, but it is definitely affected by snow.
I'm HIGHLY suspicious of any model that shows large contiguous areas of ice with a thickness in excess of 3M, for exactly the reason you suggest.
This space for Rent.

seaice.de

  • New ice
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #312 on: February 13, 2019, 10:46:05 AM »
Well this region has been very cold this winter, but we can only guess if this has translated into extra thickness. From Lebedev ice growth formula we know that sea ice over 2m grows very slowly no matter how cold the air is.

All I know for sure is that my AMSR2 thickness is high as well, but it is definitely affected by snow.
I'm HIGHLY suspicious of any model that shows large contiguous areas of ice with a thickness in excess of 3M, for exactly the reason you suggest.
You can not trust these AMSR2 thickness maps. From these kind of microwave radiometer you can just derive a very uncertain proxy. For AMSR2 frequencies the penetration depth is not more than a few centimeters, therefore the signal comes just from the sea ice surface. It is rather related to snow grain sizes, layering and sea ice surface salinity.

Juan C. García

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1500
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 511
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #313 on: October 16, 2019, 01:21:55 PM »
It is good to have it on this topic:
The Centre for Polar Observation and Monitoring have just published the first CryoSat-2 Arctic sea ice thickness map of the 2019/20 freezing season:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2019/10/facts-about-the-arctic-in-october-2019/#Oct-16

Quote
Note in particular the dark blue area north of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.
Which is the best answer to Sep-2012 ASI lost (compared to 1979-2000)?
50% [NSIDC Extent] or
73% [PIOMAS Volume]

Volume is harder to measure than extent, but 3-dimensional space is real, 2D's hide ~50% thickness gone.
-> IPCC/NSIDC trends [based on extent] underestimate the real speed of ASI lost.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6564
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1516
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #314 on: October 16, 2019, 02:43:04 PM »
It is good to have it on this topic:
The Centre for Polar Observation and Monitoring have just published the first CryoSat-2 Arctic sea ice thickness map of the 2019/20 freezing season:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2019/10/facts-about-the-arctic-in-october-2019/#Oct-16

Quote
Note in particular the dark blue area north of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.
The CryoSat-2 image is from the laser thingy, from which estimates of freeboard are generated from which estimates of thickness are made, i.e. starting with a physical measure of the ice, not from a model ?

If so, do we have any info if the Polar Science Center are doing comparisons of their model data with CyoSat-2 data? After all, they can find day, time of day and physical location from both datasets to look for close matches ?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Jim Hunt

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4288
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 273
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #315 on: October 16, 2019, 02:54:58 PM »
The CryoSat-2 image is from the laser thingy?

IceSat-2 is "the laser thingy". CryoSat-2 is the "interferometric radar range-finder thingy":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryoSat-2

It's a "measurement" of sorts, but still has to make assumptions about snow thickness to turn freeboard measurements into sea ice thickness numbers.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6564
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1516
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #316 on: October 16, 2019, 07:35:56 PM »
The CryoSat-2 image is from the laser thingy?

IceSat-2 is "the laser thingy". CryoSat-2 is the "interferometric radar range-finder thingy":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryoSat-2

It's a "measurement" of sorts, but still has to make assumptions about snow thickness to turn freeboard measurements into sea ice thickness numbers.
And do we have any idea on the reliability of the assumptions of snow thickness ?

ps: Thingys
I was thinking about how the German Institute in Potsdam recently used IceSat-2 (or was it CryoSat-2) in conjunction with GRACE-FO to improve the quality of ice-mass loss measurement of the AIS and GIS and now have got the Sat-2's totally mixed up.

The technology moves on too fast for my fevered brain to keep up.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

blumenkraft

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1290
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 586
  • Likes Given: 828
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #317 on: October 16, 2019, 07:40:30 PM »
They would make it easier for people if they'd name those sats more creatively.

No one hinders us to nickname them though.

I propose Satty Mc Satface!  8)
Refugees welcome

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4467
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1286
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #318 on: October 17, 2019, 03:04:25 AM »
Trying to visually compare PIOMAS and Cryosat, the correlation is surprisingly good IMHO.
Top thickness is roughly the same, location of thickest ice is roughly the same (shifted to the right in PIOMAS). The hole north of Greenland is roughly there, as well as the thinner ice between the Pole and FJL.
Note the Cryosat data is from a range of dates, I am using PIOMAS from Sept. 30th as a rough equivalent (taken from Wipneus' animation).

Jim Hunt

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4288
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 273
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #319 on: October 17, 2019, 11:53:56 AM »
Do we have any info if the Polar Science Center are doing comparisons of their model data with CryoSat-2 data?

Yes. See:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307429069_Comparison_of_Arctic_Sea_Ice_Thickness_from_Satellites_Aircraft_and_PIOMAS_Data

Quote
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).

There's also this related set of slides:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/sat/meetings/documents/PSTG-6_Doc_06-01-05_SIThickness-Intercomparison-Wang-Key.pdf

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

Jim Hunt

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4288
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 273
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« Reply #320 on: October 17, 2019, 01:55:12 PM »
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein