CryoSat-2 delivers monthly and inter-annual surface elevation change for Arctic ice caps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We show that the CryoSat-2 radar altimeter can provide useful estimates of surface elevation change on a variety of Arctic ice caps, on both monthly and yearly time scales. Changing conditions, however, can lead to a varying bias between the elevation estimated from the radar altimeter and the physical surface due to changes in the contribution of subsurface to surface backscatter. Under melting conditions the radar returns are predominantly from the surface so that if surface melt is extensive across the ice cap estimates of summer elevation loss can be made with the frequent coverage provided by CryoSat-2. For example, the average summer elevation decreases on the Barnes Ice Cap, Baffin Island, Canada were 2.05 ± 0.36 m (2011), 2.55 ± 0.32 m (2012), 1.38 ± 0.40 m (2013) and 1.44 ± 0.37 m (2014), losses which were not balanced by the winter snow accumulation. As winter-to-winter conditions were similar, the net elevation losses were 1.0 ± 0.2 m (winter 2010/2011 to winter 2011/2012), 1.39 ± 0.2 m (2011/2012 to 2012/2013) and 0.36 ± 0.2 m (2012/2013 to 2013/2014); for a total surface elevation loss of 2.75 ± 0.2 m over this 3 year period. In contrast, the uncertainty in height change results from Devon Ice Cap, Canada, and Austfonna, Svalbard, can be up to twice as large because of the presence of firn and the possibility of a varying bias between the true surface and the detected elevation due to changing year-to-year conditions. Nevertheless, the surface elevation change estimates from CryoSat for both ice caps are consistent with field and meteorological measurements. For example, the average 3 year elevation difference for footprints within 100 m of a repeated surface GPS track on Austfonna differed from the GPS change by 0.18 m.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".