MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2314698906 · doi:10.5194/tcd-8-1831-2014

Sensitivity of CryoSat-2 Arctic sea-ice volume trends on radar-waveform interpretation

2014· preprint· en· W2314698906 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert Ricker, Stefan Hendricks, Veit Helm, Henriette Skourup, Malcolm Davidson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFreeboardRadar altimeterSea iceSnowSea ice thicknessAltimeterArctic ice packGeologyRemote sensingRadarSea ice concentrationClimatologyMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyComputer scienceGeomorphologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Several studies have shown that there is considerable evidence that the Arctic sea-ice is thinning during the last decades. When combined with the observed rapid reduction of ice-covered area this leads to a decline in sea-ice volume. The only remote sensing technique capable of quantifying this ice volume decrease at global scale is satellite altimetry. In this context the CryoSat-2 satellite was launched in 2010 and is equipped with the Ku-band SAR radar altimeter SIRAL, which we use to derive sea-ice freeboard defined as the height of the ice surface above the local sea level. In the context of quantifying Arctic ice-volume decrease at global scale, the CryoSat-2 satellite was launched in 2010 and is equipped with the Ku-band SAR radar altimeter SIRAL, which we use to derive sea-ice freeboard defined as the height of the ice surface above the sea level. Accurate CryoSat-2 range measurements over open water and the ice surface in the order of centimeters are necessary to achieve the required accuracy of the freeboard to thickness conversion. Besides uncertainties of the actual sea-surface height and limited knowledge of ice and snow properties, the penetration of the radar signal into the snow cover and therefore the interpretation of radar echoes is crucial. This has consequences in the selection of retracker algorithms which are used to track the main scattering horizon and assign a range estimate to each CryoSat measurement. In this paper we apply a retracker algorithm with thresholds of 40%, 50% and 80% of the first maximum of radar echo power, spanning the range of values used in current literature. For the 40% threshold we assume that the main scattering horizon lies at a certain depth between the surface and snow-ice interface as verified through coincident CryoSat-2 and airborne laser altimetry measurements. This contrasts with the 50% and 80% thresholds where we assume the ice-snow interface as the main scattering horizon similar to other published studies. Using the selected retrackers we evaluate the uncertainties of trends in sea-ice freeboard and higher level products that arise from the choice of the retracker threshold only, independently from the uncertainties related to snow and ice properties. Our study shows that the choice of retracker thresholds does have a non-negligible impact on magnitude estimates of sea-ice freeboard, thickness and volume, but that the main trends in these parameters are less affected. Specifically we find declines of Arctic sea-ice volume of 9.7% (40% threshold), 10.9% (50% threshold) and 6.9% (80% threshold) between March 2011 and March 2013. In contrast to that we find increases in Arctic sea-ice volume of 27.88% (40% threshold), 25.71% (50% threshold) and 32.65% (80% threshold) between November 2011 and November 2013. Furthermore we obtain a significant increase of freeboard from March 2013 to November 2013 in the area for multi-seasonal sea-ice north of Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago. Since this is unlikely it gives rise to the assumption that applying different retracker thresholds depending on seasonal properties of the snow load is necessary in the future.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→