Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 4.524 IF 4.524
  • IF 5-year value: 5.558 IF 5-year 5.558
  • CiteScore value: 4.84 CiteScore 4.84
  • SNIP value: 1.425 SNIP 1.425
  • SJR value: 3.034 SJR 3.034
  • IPP value: 4.65 IPP 4.65
  • h5-index value: 52 h5-index 52
  • Scimago H index value: 55 Scimago H index 55
Volume 11, issue 5 | Copyright
The Cryosphere, 11, 2059-2073, 2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Research article 04 Sep 2017

Research article | 04 Sep 2017

Comparison of CryoSat-2 and ENVISAT radar freeboard over Arctic sea ice: toward an improved Envisat freeboard retrieval

Kevin Guerreiro1, Sara Fleury1, Elena Zakharova1,2, Alexei Kouraev1,2,3, Frédérique Rémy1, and Philippe Maisongrande1 Kevin Guerreiro et al.
  • 1Laboratoire d'Etudes en Géophysique et Océanographie Spatiales, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (LEGOS – CNRS, UMR5566), Université de Toulouse, 31400 Toulouse, France
  • 2State Oceanography Institute, St. Petersburg Branch, St. Petersburg, Russia
  • 3Department of Hydrology, Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia

Abstract. Over the past decade, sea-ice freeboard has been monitored with various satellite altimetric missions with the aim of producing long-term time series of ice thickness. While recent studies have demonstrated the capacity of the CryoSat-2 mission (2010–present) to provide accurate freeboard measurements, the current estimates obtained with the Envisat mission (2002–2012) still require some large improvements.

In this study, we first estimate Envisat and CryoSat-2 radar freeboard by using the exact same processing algorithms. We then analyse the freeboard difference between the two estimates over the common winter periods (November 2010–April 2011 and November 2011–March 2012). The analysis of along-track data and gridded radar freeboard in conjunction with Envisat pulse-peakiness (PP) maps suggests that the discrepancy between the two sensors is related to the surface properties of sea-ice floes and to the use of a threshold retracker.

Based on the relation between the Envisat pulse peakiness and the radar freeboard difference between Envisat and CryoSat-2, we produce a monthly CryoSat-2-like version of Envisat freeboard. The improved Envisat data set freeboard displays a similar spatial distribution to CryoSat-2 (RMSD = 1.5cm) during the two ice growth seasons and for all months of the period of study.

The comparison of the altimetric data sets with in situ ice draught measurements during the common flight period shows that the improved Envisat data set (RMSE = 12–28cm) is as accurate as CryoSat-2 (RMSE = 15–21cm) and much more accurate than the uncorrected Envisat data set (RMSE = 178–179cm).

The comparison of the improved Envisat radar freeboard data set is then extended to the rest of the Envisat mission to demonstrate the validity of PP correction from the calibration period. The good agreement between the improved Envisat data set and the in situ ice draught data set (RMSE = 13–32cm) demonstrates the potential of the PP correction to produce accurate freeboard estimates over the entire Envisat mission lifetime.

Download & links
Publications Copernicus
Short summary
We analyse CryoSat-2 and Envisat freeboard height discrepancy over Arctic sea ice and we study the potential role of ice roughness. Based on our results, we build a CryoSat-2-like version of Envisat freeboard height. The improved Envisat freeboard is converted to sea ice draught and compared to in situ mooring observations to demonstrate the potential of our methodology to produce accurate ice thickness estimates over the 2002–2012 period.
We analyse CryoSat-2 and Envisat freeboard height discrepancy over Arctic sea ice and we study...