Search

NASA's Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2) laser altimeter launched in Fall 2018, providing an invaluable addition to the polar altimetry record generated by ESA's CryoSat-2 radar altimeter. The simultaneous operation of these two satellite altimeters enables unique comparison studies of sea ice altimetry, utilizing the different frequencies and profiling strategies of the two instruments. Here, we use freeboard data from ICESat-2 to assess Antarctic snow freeboard retrievals from CryoSat-2. We first discuss updates made to a previously published CryoSat-2 retrieval process and show how this Version 2 algorithm improves upon the original method by comparing the new retrievals to ICESat-2 in specific along-track profiles as well as on the basin-scale. In two near-coincident along-track profiles, we find mean snow freeboard differences (standard deviations of differences) of 0.3 (9.3) and 7.6 cm (9.6 cm) with 25 km binned correlation coefficients of 0.77 and 0.89. Monthly mean freeboard differences range between −2.9 (10.8) and 6.6 cm (16.8 cm) basin wide, with the largest differences typically occurring in Austral fall months that is hypothesized to be related to new ice growth and the use of static snow backscatter coefficients in the retrieval. Monthly mean correlation coefficients range between 0.57 and 0.80. While coincident data show good agreement between the two sensors, they highlight issues related to geometric and frequency sampling differences that can impact the freeboard distributions.

A series of traverses has been conducted for validation of the NASA Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite 2 on the flat interior of the Antarctic ice sheet. GNSS data collected on three separate 88S Traverses intersect 20% of the ICESat-2 reference ground tracks and have precisions of better than ±7 cm and biases of less than ~4 cm. Data from these traverses were used to assess heights from ICESat-2, CryoSat-2, and Airborne Topographic Mapper (ATM). ICESat-2 heights have better than ±3.3 cm bias and better than ±7.2 cm precision. ATM heights have better than 9.3 cm bias and better than ±9.6 cm precision. CryoSat-2 heights have -38.9 cm of bias and ± 47.3 cm precision. These best-case results are from the flat ice-sheet interior but provide a characterization of the quality of satellite and airborne altimetry.

From the onset of melt in early June, corresponding declines in Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite‐2 (ICESat‐2) freeboard and surface albedo can be seen over the entire Arctic sea ice cover. In the 2019 summer, area‐averaged freeboard decreased from 34 cm prior to melt to a minimum of 12 cm in August while the area‐averaged albedo decreased from ~0.7 to 0.38 for the same period. Calculations using ICESat‐2 freeboards and modeled ice thickness from Pan‐Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) give area‐averaged snow depths ranging from 17 cm prior to melt to 3 cm in August over seasonal ice and from 34 to 4 cm over multiyear ice. Mean rates of snow ablation (including evaporation) in mid‐June were as high as 2 cm/day, comparable to field records from other years. Increases in freeboard after mid‐August in the high latitude (>80°N) multiyear ice cover, north of the Greenland coast, are likely due to earlier freeze‐up and snow accumulation in these regions with shorter melt seasons.

We present a first examination of Arctic sea ice snow depth estimates from differencing satellite lidar (ICESat‐2) and radar (CryoSat‐2) freeboards. These estimates cover the period between 14 October 2018 and the end of April 2019. Snow depth is related to freeboard differences by the refractive index/bulk density of the snow layer—the only free parameter in the approach. Area‐averaged snow depth ranges from 9 cm (on first‐year ice: 5 cm, multiyear ice: 14 cm) in late October to 19 cm (first‐year ice: 17 cm, multiyear ice: 27 cm) in April; on average, this snow is thinner over FYI. Spatial patterns and gradients of snow depth estimates compare well with reconstructions using snowfall from ERA‐Interim and ERA5, although snowfall from ERA5 is systematically higher. For all months, the results suggest that ~50% of the total freeboard is comprised of snow. Retrievals are within a few centimeters of snow depth data acquired by Operation IceBridge in April 2019. Sources of uncertainties associated with this freeboard‐differencing approach are discussed. Further, sea ice thicknesses calculated using the retrieved snow depth and a modified climatology are contrasted. Comparatively, the snow depth and calculated ice thickness using a modified climatology are higher by ~5 cm and 0.33 m, although these differences are not uniform throughout the season. Snow accumulation was slower between October and December but increased between December and January, unlike the modified climatology, which exhibited a monotonic accumulation for all months. Future opportunities for assessment and improvement of these estimates are discussed.

The snow layer atop Arctic sea ice is an important component of the climate system. In winter, the insulating effects of snow slow the rate of ice growth. In spring, the onset of ice surface melt is delayed until the highly reflective snow layer disappears. During summer, meltwater from snow collects in depressions to form melt ponds, which enhances the absorption of solar radiation leading to more rapid surface warming. Presently, there are no routine measurements of snow depth suitable for assessing the impact of climate changes on the precipitation and accumulation of snow on sea ice.Our current understanding of snow depth is limited and has been based on field measurements conducted in the middle of last century and from airborne surveys conducted over the last decade. In this paper, we combine the measurements from two altimetry missions (ICESat‐2 and CryoSat‐2) to calculate snow depth over the entire Arctic Ocean. ICESat‐2 (a lidar) and CryoSat‐2 (a radar) measure the heights to the top and bottom of the snow layer, respectively. Differencing the two heights provides an estimate of the thickness of the snow layer. This paper describes this novel approach and an assessment of the snow depth estimates.