The inter comparison and assessment of satellite sea-ice concentration datasets from the arctic

Jiechen ZHAO; Xiang ZHOU; Xiaoyu SUN; Jingjing CHENG; Bo HU; Chunhua LI

doi:10.11834/jrs.20176136

Views : 0 下载量: 93 CSCD: 16 更多指标

PDF
Export
Share
Collection
Album

The inter comparison and assessment of satellite sea-ice concentration datasets from the arctic
Vol. 21, Issue 3, Pages: 351-364(2017)
Published： 2017-5 ，

Accepted： 29 November 2016
DOI： 10.11834/jrs.20176136

扫描看全文

Jiechen ZHAO, Xiang ZHOU, Xiaoyu SUN, et al. The inter comparison and assessment of satellite sea-ice concentration datasets from the arctic. [J]. Journal of Remote Sensing 21(3):351-364(2017)
DOI：

Jiechen ZHAO, Xiang ZHOU, Xiaoyu SUN, et al. The inter comparison and assessment of satellite sea-ice concentration datasets from the arctic. [J]. Journal of Remote Sensing 21(3):351-364(2017) DOI： 10.11834/jrs.20176136.

摘要

本文利用2012年夏季中国第五次北极科学考察期间雪龙船在北极东北航道走航观测的海冰密集度数据(OBS-SIC)，初步评估了7种基于被动微波遥感的海冰密集度产品(PM-SIC)。7种PM-SIC因传感器和反演方法不同，分辨率差异较大(4—25 km)。在海盆尺度的海冰范围反演上7种PM-SIC基本相同，但对小范围浮冰区的反演差异较大。与MODIS可见光图像对比发现，MASAM数据(4 km)对局部小区域海冰刻画较好，是研究近岸区域或海峡岛屿海冰覆盖范围或面积时的首选产品；7种PM-SIC纬向平均后对比分析显示，不同PM-SIC对网格内是否存在海冰的判断基本一致，但对网格内海冰所占的比例(密集度)判断差异较大。结合OBS-SIC按航线、区域、密集度大小3种不同情况对7种PM-SIC进行分类定量评估，结果表明基于AMSR2传感器的AMSR2/ASI和AMSR2/Bootstrap数据与OBS-SIC偏差较小，平均偏差约±1%，均方根偏差仅11%和12%；而SSMIS/NT数据的偏差最大，平均偏差约–15%，均方根偏差为21%，其严重低估了网格内的海冰密集度值；因此具有更高分辨率的AMSR2/ASI数据(6.25 km)是关注海冰密集度大小时的首选产品。

Abstract

The rapid decrease in Arctic sea ice makes normalized commercial shipping through Arctic passages possible. The accuracy of Sea-Ice Concentration (SIC) data is a crucial basis for Arctic shipping. Filed SIC data

however

is difficult to acquire. Passive microwave (PM) satellite is an efficient tool for obtaining large-scale SIC. Unfortunately

satellite SIC in the Arctic can only be evaluated with limited field observation data. Ship-based sea ice concentration observations (OBS-SIC) have been collected in the Antarctic to evaluate PM satellite sea-ice concentration (PM-SIC) (Worby

et al.

1999). In this paper

seven PM-SIC datasets that were released by Bremen University

NSIDC

and EUMETSAT were compared and assessed using ship-based OBS-SIC during the 5

CHINARE Arctic Northeast Passage cruise from July to September 2012. A total of 604 OBS-SIC pairs that were obtained from approximately 20 days of the cruise is evaluated. We selected another 604 SIC pairs from PM-SIC datasets based on the same OBS-SIC latitude and longitude. To avoid bias from daily sea ice changes and different spatial resolutions

the daily mean PM-SIC and OBS-SIC for comparison is calculated using a method that is based on a similar evaluation work in Antarctica (Beitsch

et al.

2015). MODIS images are also used to evaluate the sea ice distribution near the continent

narrow strait

and island. Results show that the seven satellite datasets have a similar pattern of large sea ice distribution

but have dissimilar patterns near the continent

island

and strait. MASAM successfully detected the small ice floe area near Poluostrov Taymyr on July 25

2012

and near Ostrov Vrangelya on September 1

2012

whereas other methods failed to do so. Latitude mean comparisons demonstrate that the seven PM-SIC have highly similar abilities to detect that the grid was completely water or sea ice

but highly differed in the detected percentage of sea ice in the ice grid. Quantitative evaluation via OBS-SIC comparison indicatesthatAMSR2/ASI

AMSR2/Bootstrap

SSMIS/ASI

and SSMIS/Bootstrap performed well

whereas SSMIS/NT and MASAM performedbadly.AMSR2/ASI has the lowest bias of 1% and root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 11%. However

SSMIS/NT largely underestimates the SIC with a mean bias of –15% and RMSE of 21%. AMSR2/ASI has a higher spatial resolution than the well-performing group. More importantly

it is updated near real time with only a delay of one day. High resolution and timely updates are the most important factors for operational ice service

which make AMSR2/ASI the best choice as areal-time shipping guide. High-resolution MASAM (4 km) can detect small sea ice distribution near the continent and narrow strait. Therefore

it is the most suitable for sea ice area and should be used for further studies in special regions. However

near-real-time higher-resolution AMSR2/ASI (6.25 km)has a smaller bias and RMSE with OBS-SIC. Hence

it is the best dataset for SIC quantity studies and real-time shipping guide.

关键词

北极东北航道被动微波遥感海冰密集度走航观测数据质量评估

Keywords

arctic northeast passagepassive microwavesea ice concentrationship-based observationdata assessment

references

Beitsch A, Kaleschke L and Kern S. 2014. Investigating high-resolution AMSR2 sea ice concentrations during the February 2013 fracture event in the Beaufort sea. Remote Sensing, 6(5): 3841–3856

Beitsch A, Kern S and Kaleschke L. 2015. Comparison of SSM/I and AMSR-E sea ice concentrations with ASPeCt ship observations around Antarctica. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 53(4): 1985–1996

Cavalieri D, Parkinson C, Gloersen P and Zwally H J. 1996. Sea Ice Concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I-SSMIS Passive Microwave Data. Boulder, Colorado USA: NASA DAAC at the National Snow and Ice Data Center

Cavalieri D J, Gloersen P and Campbell W J. 1984. Determination of sea ice parameters with the Nimbus7 SMMR. Journal of Geophysical Research, 89(D4): 5355–5369

Cavalieri D J and Parkinson C L. 2012. Arctic sea ice variability and trends, 1979–2010. The Cryosphere, 6(4): 881–889

Comiso J. 2000. Bootstrap Sea Ice Concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I-SSMIS, Version 2. Boulder, Colorado USA: NASA DAAC at the National Snow and Ice Data Center

Comiso J C. 1986. Characteristics of arctic winter sea ice from satellite multispectral microwave observations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 91(C1): 975–994

Comiso J C, Cavalieri D J, Parkinson C and Gloersen P. 1997. Passive microwave algorithms for sea ice concentration: a comparison of two techniques. Remote Sensing of Environment, 60(3): 357–384

Comiso J C and Steffen K. 2001. Studies of Antarctic sea ice concentrations from satellite data and their applications. Journal of Geophysical Research, 106(C12): 31361–31385

Comiso J C, Parkinson C L, Gersten R and Stock L. 2008. Accelerateddecline in the Arctic sea ice cover. Geophysical Research Letter, 35(1): L01703

Eastwood S. 2014. Sea Ice Product User’s Manual OSI-401-a, OSI-402-a, OSI-403-a, Version 3.11. EUMETSAT

Fetterer F, Stewart J S and Meier W N. 2015. MASAM2: Daily 4-km Arctic Sea Ice Concentration, 2012–2014. Boulder, Colorado USA: National Snow and Ice Data Center [DOI: 10.7265/N5ZS 2TFT]

Haas C, Pfaffling A, Hendricks S, Rabenstein L, Etienne J L and Rigor I. 2008. Reduced ice thickness in arctic transpolar driftfavors rapid ice retreat. Geophysical ResearchLetters, 35(17): L17501

Kwok R, Cunningham G F, Wensnahan M, Rigor I, Zwally H J and Yi D. 2009. Thinning and volume loss of the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover: 2003–2008. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114(C7): C07005

Lei R B, Xie H J, Wang J, Leppäranta M, Jónsdottir I and Zhang Z H. 2015. Changes in sea ice conditions along the arctic northeast passage from 1979 to 2012. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 119: 132–144

马德毅. 2013. 中国第五次北极科学考察报告. 北京: 海洋出版社

Ma D Y. 2013. The Report of 2012 Chinese Arctic Research Expedition. Beijing: China Ocean Press

Markus T and Cavalieri D J. 2000. An enhancement of the NASA team sea ice algorithm.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 38(3): 1387–1398

Markus T, Stroeve J C and Miller J. 2009. Recent changes in Arctic sea ice melt onset, freezeup, and melt season length. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114(C12): C12024

Nghiem S V, Rigor I G, Perovich D K, Clemente-Colón P, Weatherly J W and Neumann G. 2007. Rapid reduction of Arctic perennialsea ice.Geophysical Research Letter, 34(19): L19504

Parkinson C L and Comiso J C. 2008. Antarctic sea ice parameters from AMSR-E data usingtwo techniques and comparisons with sea ice from SSM/I. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113(C2): C02S06

Rodrigues J. 2008. The rapid decline of the sea ice in the Russian Arctic.Cold Regions Science and Technology, 54(2): 124–142

Spreen G, Kaleschke L and Heygster G. 2008. Sea ice remote sensing using AMSR-E 89-GHz channels.Journal of Geophysical Research, 113(C2): C02S03

Stroeve J C, Serreze M C, Holland M M, Kay J E, Malanik J and Barrett A P. 2012. The Arctic’s rapidly shrinking sea ice cover: a researchsynthesis. Climatic Change, 110(3): 1005–1027

Svendsen E, Matzler C and Grenfell T C. 1987. A model for retrieving total sea ice concentration from a spaceborne dual-polarized passive microwave instrument operating near 90 GHz. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 8(10): 1479–1487

Swift C T, Fedor L S and Ramseier R O. 1985. An algorithm to measure sea ice concentration with microwave radiometers.Journal of Geophysical Research, 90(C1): 1087–1099

Worby A, Ian A and Vito D. 1999. A Technique for Making Ship-Based Observations of Antarctic Sea Ice Thickness and Characteristics.Hobart: Australia Antarctic Division

Xie H, Lei R, Ke C, Wang H, Li Z, Zhao J and Ackley S F. 2013. Summer sea ice characteristics and morphology in the Pacific Arctic sector as observed during the CHINARE 2010 cruise. The Cryosphere, 7(4): 1057–1072

赵杰臣, 张林, 田忠翔, 李明, 惠凤鸣, 李春花, 韩红卫. 2014. 南极罗斯海2012年夏季海冰特征分析. 极地研究, 26(3): 342–351

Zhao J C, Zhang L, Tian Z X, Li M, Hui F M, Li C H and Han H W. 2014. Sea ice distribution in the Ross Sea, Antarctica, during the austral summer of 2012. Chinese Journal of Polar Research, 26(3): 342–351

Alert me when the article has been cited

提交

Accuracy of microwave remote sensing products in evaluating sea ice concentration in Prydz Bay， Antarctica

Feasibility analysis of retrieving sea ice concentration by multi-incidence angle brightness temperature at 89 GHz

Retrieval of the Arctic sea ice concentration from FY-3B/MWRI using ASI algorithm

Comparison and validation of sea ice concentration from FY-3B/MWRI and Aqua/AMSR-E observations