Précédent|Prochain

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

  • role： First author第一作者
  • Affiliation：

    Key laboratory of Research on Marine Hazards Forecasting (SOA), National Marine Environmental Forecasting Center, Beijing 100081, China

    College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China

  • Email：zhaojc@nmefc.gov.cn
  • Introduction：赵杰臣(1984—　)，男，工程师，研究方向为极地海冰观测和数值模拟。E-mail：zhaojc@nmefc.gov.cn
ZHAO Jiechen12,  
  • Affiliation：

    Key laboratory of Research on Marine Hazards Forecasting (SOA), National Marine Environmental Forecasting Center, Beijing 100081, China

ZHOU Xiang3,  
  • Affiliation：

    Key laboratory of Research on Marine Hazards Forecasting (SOA), National Marine Environmental Forecasting Center, Beijing 100081, China

SUN Xiaoyu1,  
  • Affiliation：

    Key laboratory of Research on Marine Hazards Forecasting (SOA), National Marine Environmental Forecasting Center, Beijing 100081, China

CHENG Jingjing4,  
  • Affiliation：

    Key laboratory of Research on Marine Hazards Forecasting (SOA), National Marine Environmental Forecasting Center, Beijing 100081, China

HU Bo5,  
  • Affiliation：

    Key laboratory of Research on Marine Hazards Forecasting (SOA), National Marine Environmental Forecasting Center, Beijing 100081, China

LI Chunhua1

résumé

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 5th 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.

mots-clés

arctic northeast passage;passive microwave;sea ice concentration;ship-based observation;data assessment

References

  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Cavalieri D J and Parkinson C L. 2012. Arctic sea ice variability and trends, 1979–2010. The Cryosphere, 6(4): 881–889
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Comiso J C. 1986. Characteristics of arctic winter sea ice from satellite multispectral microwave observations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 91(C1): 975–994
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Eastwood S. 2014. Sea Ice Product User’s Manual OSI-401-a, OSI-402-a, OSI-403-a, Version 3.11. EUMETSAT
  12. 12.
    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]
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Ma D Y. 2013. The Report of 2012 Chinese Arctic Research Expedition. Beijing: China Ocean Press
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    Rodrigues J. 2008. The rapid decline of the sea ice in the Russian Arctic.Cold Regions Science and Technology, 54(2): 124–142
  22. 22.
    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
  23. 23.
    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
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    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
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    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
  28. 28.
    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

Lire l'article complet

The above content is generated by Large Model Translation. The translated content is for reference only. We do not assume any commercial or legal responsibilty for any consequences arising from the use of our website