Antarctic sea ice thickness measurements using a ship-borne electromagnetic induction device

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
J. E. Reid ◽  
J. Vrbancich ◽  
A. P. Worby
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Electromagnetic Induction ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Antarctic Sea Ice ◽  
Thickness Measurements

Estimating the thickness of ridged sea ice from ship observations in the Ross Sea

2003 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
TINA TIN ◽  
MARTIN O. JEFFRIES ◽  
MIKKO LENSU ◽  
JUKKA TUHKURI
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Ross Sea ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Thickness Distribution ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Equivalent Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Antarctic Sea Ice ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Original Formula

Ship-based observations of sea ice thickness using the Antarctic Sea Ice Processes and Climate (ASPeCt) protocol provide information on ice thickness distribution at relatively low cost. This protocol uses a simple formula to calculate the mass of ice in ridges based on surface observations. We present two new formulae and compare these with results from the “Original” formula using data obtained in the Ross Sea in autumn and winter. The new “r-star” formula uses a more realistic ratio of sail and keel areas to transform dimensions of sails to estimates of mean keel areas. As a result, estimates of “equivalent thickness” (i.e. mean thickness of ice in ridged areas) increased by over 200%. The new “Probability” formula goes one step further, by incorporating the probability that a sail is associated with a keel underwater, and the probability that keels may be found under level surfaces. This resulted in estimates of equivalent thickness comparable with the Original formula. Estimates of equivalent thickness at one or two degree latitude resolution are sufficiently accurate for validating sea ice models. Although ridges are small features in the Ross Sea, we have shown that they constitute a significant fraction of the total ice mass.

Post-processing calibration of frequency-domain electromagnetic data for sea ice thickness measurements

2004 ◽  
Vol 2004 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
James Reid ◽  
John Bishop ◽  
Angus Munro ◽  
Andi Pfaffling ◽  
Kazu Tateyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Frequency Domain ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Post Processing ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Electromagnetic Data ◽  
Thickness Measurements

Sounding sea ice thickness using a portable electromagnetic induction instrument

Geophysics ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (12) ◽  
pp. 1992-1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Austin Kovacs ◽  
Rexford M. Morey
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Electromagnetic Induction ◽  
Direct Determination ◽  
Conductivity Measurement ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Remote Measurement ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Processing Module

Field trials using a man‐portable, commercially available, electromagnetic induction (EMI) sounding instrument, with a plug‐in data processing module for the remote measurement of sea ice thickness, are discussed. The processing module was made to allow for the direct determination of sea ice thickness and to show the result in a numerical display. The processing module system was capable of estimating ice thickness within 10 percent of the the true ice value for ice from about 0.7 to 3.5 m thick, the thickest of undeformed ice in our study area. However, since seawater under the Arctic pack ice has relatively uniform conductivity (2.55 ± 0.05 S/m), a simplified method can be used for estimating sea ice thickness using just an EMI instrument. This technique uses only the EMI conductivity measurement, is easy to put into use, and does not rely on theoretically derived look‐up tables or phasor diagrams, which may not be accurate for the conditions of the area.

Data-derived spatial-resolution errors of Antarctic sea-ice thickness

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 202-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary D. Stampone ◽  
Cathleen A. Geiger ◽  
Tracy L. DeLiberty ◽  
E. Rachel Bernstein
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Spatial Resolution ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Antarctic Sea Ice

scholarly journals Snow depth uncertainty and its implications on satellite derived Antarctic sea ice thickness

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Price ◽  
Iman Soltanzadeh ◽  
Wolfgang Rack
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Snow Depth ◽  
Snow Accumulation ◽  
In Situ Measurements ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Growth Season ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Antarctic Sea Ice ◽  
Fast Ice

Abstract. 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.

scholarly journals About the consistency between Envisat and CryoSat-2 radar freeboard retrieval over Antarctic sea ice

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 4893-4923 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Schwegmann ◽  
E. Rinne ◽  
R. Ricker ◽  
S. Hendricks ◽  
V. Helm
Keyword(s):  
Southern Ocean ◽  
Sea Ice ◽  
Altimeter Data ◽  
Ice Thickness ◽  
Radar Altimeter ◽  
Growth Season ◽  
Sea Ice Thickness ◽  
Antarctic Sea Ice ◽  
Abstract Knowledge ◽  
Modal Values

Abstract. Knowledge about Antarctic sea-ice volume and its changes over the past decades has been sparse due to the lack of systematic sea-ice thickness measurements in this remote area. Recently, first attempts have been made to develop a sea-ice thickness product over the Southern Ocean from space-borne radar altimetry and results look promising. Today, more than 20 years of radar altimeter data are potentially available for such products. However, data come from different sources, and the characteristics of individual sensors differ. Hence, it is important to study the consistency between single sensors in order to develop long and consistent time series over the potentially available measurement period. Here, the consistency between freeboard measurements of the Radar Altimeter 2 on-board Envisat and freeboard measurements from the Synthetic-Aperture Interferometric Radar Altimeter on-board CryoSat-2 is tested for their overlap period in 2011. Results indicate that mean and modal values are comparable over the sea-ice growth season (May–October) and partly also beyond. In general, Envisat data shows higher freeboards in the seasonal ice zone while CryoSat-2 freeboards are higher in the perennial ice zone and near the coasts. This has consequences for the agreement in individual sectors of the Southern Ocean, where one or the other ice class may dominate. Nevertheless, over the growth season, mean freeboard for the entire (regional separated) Southern Ocean differs generally by not more than 2 cm (5 cm, except for the Amundsen/Bellingshausen Sea) between Envisat and CryoSat-2, and the differences between modal freeboard lie generally within ±10 cm and often even below.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document