Uncertainties on the combined use of ICESat and ICESat-2 observations to monitor lake levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lake water level is an important variable to indicate lake hydrological balances and climate change impacts. Benefiting from the launch of the laser altimeters ICESat and ICESat-2, higher spatial-resolution elevation measurements have opened new possibilities for monitoring lake levels globally over the past two decades. However, uncertainties on the combined use of two-generation satellite laser measurements have not yet been investigated specifically. This study aimed to summarize the important technique notes on water level data processing by integrating the ICESat and ICESat-2 altimetry measurements. We mainly focused on the effect of geoid height, water masks for extracting altimetry footprints, and the 9-year data gap between the two generations of satellites on water level change estimates. We compared the influences of the above three factors in different situations by selecting typical lakes worldwide as study cases. The results showed that: (1) In the combination of ICESat and ICESat-2 products, geoid heights need to be recalculated for each footprint based on its longitude and latitude in order to replace the geoid values of the original products when calculating orthometric heights. It is necessary because the default geoids in both generations of products (ICESat and ICESat-2) exhibit a systematic deviation; (2) To balance the accuracy and efficiency, the small water mask in the low-level year is recommended to extract the potential footprints in comparison with the laborious processing of time-varying water masks; (3) The 9-year data gap between ICESat and ICESat-2 observations may cause inevitable overestimations or underestimations of the long-term change rate of lake levels with a non-linear trajectory, yet it has few effects on lakes with (near) linear trending or fluctuating changes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".