4.7 Article

CryoSat-2 estimates of Arctic sea ice thickness and volume

Journal

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume 40, Issue 4, Pages 732-737

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/grl.50193

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. UK's Natural Environment Research Council
  2. European Space Agency
  3. German Aerospace Center (DLR)
  4. Alberta Ingenuity
  5. National Science Foundation (NSF)
  6. NERC [NE/H01635X/1, cpom20001] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Directorate For Geosciences
  8. Office of Polar Programs (OPP) [1203425] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  9. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/H01635X/1, earth010006, cpom20001] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Satellite records show a decline in ice extent over more than three decades, with a record minimum in September 2012. Results from the Pan-Arctic Ice-Ocean Modelling and Assimilation system (PIOMAS) suggest that the decline in extent has been accompanied by a decline in volume, but this has not been confirmed by data. Using new data from the European Space Agency CryoSat-2 (CS-2) mission, validated with in situ data, we generate estimates of ice volume for the winters of 2010/11 and 2011/12. We compare these data with current estimates from PIOMAS and earlier (2003-8) estimates from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ICESat mission. Between the ICESat and CryoSat-2 periods, the autumn volume declined by 4291 km(3) and the winter volume by 1479 km(3). This exceeds the decline in ice volume in the central Arctic from the PIOMAS model of 2644 km(3) in the autumn, but is less than the 2091 km(3) in winter, between the two time periods. Citation: Laxon S. W., K. A. Giles, A. L. Ridout, D. J. Wingham, R. Willatt, R. Cullen, R. Kwok, A. Schweiger, J. Zhang, C. Haas, S. Hendricks, R. Krishfield, N. Kurtz, S. Farrell and M. Davidson (2013), CryoSat-2 estimates of Arctic sea ice thickness and volume, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 732-737, doi:10.1002/grl.50193.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available