Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

International Journal of Remote Sensing Applications Volume 4 Issue 4, December 2014

doi: 10.14355/ijrsa.2014.0404.01

www.ijrsa.org

Error Analyses of the Sea Ice Draft Retrieval


from Upward Looking Sonar
Vera Djepa
Department of Applied Mathematics and Thoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, UK
vd256@cam.ac.uk
Abstract
Sea Ice Draft (SID) has been recorded in the last 40 years
from Upload looking Sonar (ULS) on submarines, but not all
data are error corrected. Error corrected SID with
uncertainties is required for validation of climate models,
satellite observations and for assessment of the seasonal and
annual SID change due to climate impact.
The aim of this study is to analyse the uncertainties of the
SID, derived from ULS and develop algorithms for error
correction and validation of the retrieved SID from ULS. The
uncertainties of the retrieved SID (from ULS on submarine)
are analysed. Algorithms for error correction of SID with
open water offset and beam width impact are developed and
applied to correct SID, retrieved from ULS in the Beaufort
Sea in 2007. A bias correction function of raw SID data is
provided. The comparison of SID from ULS with collocated
SID derived from Radar Altimeter (RA2/Envisat)
demonstrated improved biases and correlation coefficient,
which confirms the accuracy of the bias-corrected SID. Error
corrected SID, derived from ULS, has been applied to
validate an algorithm for SID retrieval from RA, using
variable ice density. Algorithm for retrieval of sea ice density
from the sea ice freeboard, derived from RA, is developed
and results of retrieved sea ice density in Beaufort Sea are
shown. The developed error correction algorithms of SID,
retrieved from ULS, have global application for correction of
SID, which are not yet error corrected. Error corrected SID
and the derived sea ice densities are essential climate
variables (ECV) important for improved climate forecast and
validation of satellite observations. European Space Agency
(ESA), National Snow and Ice Data centre (NSIDC), climate
change and numerical prediction programs will benefit the
results of this paper.
Keywords
Remote Sensing; Sea Ice Draft; Upward Looking Sonar; Error;
Uncertainties Analyses; Statistic; Validation

Introduction
Arctic sea ice plays an important role in regulating
global weather by maintaining the energy balance
between Arctic and mid-latitudes. Satellite, airborne,
buoy and Upward Looking sonar (ULS) (moored or on
Submarine) data have been used to estimate the sea ice

thickness (SIT) changes due to climate impact


[Rothrock et al, 2008, Laxon et al, 2003]. Sea Ice Draft
from ULS (SID(ULS)) have been used for mapping ice
bottom topography, or investigation the SID decline,
but still not all SID(ULS) data are processed and error
corrected [Wadhams et al, 2011]. There are a number
of environmental, random and systematic factors,
contributing to the accuracy of the sea ice draft,
derived from ULS on submarine, where the open
water and the impact of beam width are the most
important errors [Rothrock et al, 2007]. Error
corrections have been applied for SID, derived from
ULS observations at NSIDC [Rothrock et al, 2007], but
the SID derived from ULS on UK submarine (Tireless
cruise) in March 2007 have not been corrected
[Wadhams et al, 2011]. Methodology and algorithms
have been developed in this study for error correction
of SID, derived from ULS on submarine. The retrieved
SID from ULS, operating on UK submarine in Beaufort
Sea has been error corrected in the following Sections
and the correction function has been provided.
The error corrected SID, derived from ULS is
important not only for investigation of SID decline in
the Arctic but also for validation of SID, derived from
Radar Altimeter (RA) (on board ERS 1, 2 , Envisat
CryoSat-2 and future Sentinel missions). Error
corrected SID, derived from ULS in Beaufort Sea, has
been used in this study for validation of collocated SID,
derived from RA2/Envisat, applying an algorithm of
variable ice density.
Sea ice density (i), snow depth (hs) and density (s)
are input variables in the equations for hydrostatic
equilibrium, used to calculate SIT and SID from the
sea ice freeboard [Kwok, 2010]. Sea ice density has also
important role in energy balance and ice atmosphere
interactions, which makes i Essential climate Variable
(ECV). The wide range of sea ice density and its
dependence on freeboard, ice type and snow
properties have been reported by various authors
[Kovacs,1996, Alexandrov, 2010], but still it is not

145

www.ijrsa.org

International Journal of Remote Sensing Applications Volume 4 Issue 4, December 2014

available i product, derived from the freeboard, and


retrieved from satellite altimetry. A sea ice density has
been derived in the following sections from SID,
retrieved from RA and validated with collocated error
corrected SID, from ULS.

is about 1m. The impact of beam width and open


water offset on SID retrieved from ULS on the
submarine will be estimated in the next sub sections.

Considering above factors, the aim of this study is to


analyse the uncertainties of the retrieved SID from
ULS, to develop algorithms for error correction of the
derived SID from ULS on Submarine and demonstrate
SID applications for validation of SID derived from
RA and retrieval of sea ice density. The paper is
organised as follows: i) the SID (ULS) retrieval
technique, error correction algorithms and correction
function for SID(ULS), derived in the Beaufort Sea are
summarised in Section 1; ii) Retrieval of SID from RA,
algorithm for variable ice density and SID applications
are given in Section 2. The results are summarised in
conclusion.

The main sources of biases, impacting the SID, which


is retrieved from ULS on a submarine, are open water
correction and footprint error. Mean total bias of 29 cm
and standard deviation of about 25 cm, accounting for
the footprint error of ULS (with 2o beam width) and
open water correction is reported for SID, which is
retrieved from ULS and is available in NSIDC
[Rothrock, et al, 2007]. This estimate is valid for SID,
retrieved from US submarines if open water correction
has been applied. If the SID, which is retrieved from
ULS, is not corrected with the open water offset,
negative draft can be observed due to wrongly
identified open water in presence of thin ice. The open
water correction bias (Wc) can be derived from the
statistic of negative drafts (mean <0m, min<0m, where
mean, min are the mean and minimum values of the
negative drafts recorded in each 50km region). In
presence of negative draft, the Wc is equal to the mean
negative ice draft in corresponding region (if the
impact of thin ice is not corrected). No open water
correction is applied if the mean and minimum SID in
any (50 km) region are positive.

Retrieval of SID from ULS


The sea ice draft (d) measured by sonar transducer
mounted on the submarine is calculated from the
difference between the depth of the transducer (DT)
below the sea surface and the sonar measured range to
the ice bottom by:
d = DT r ,
(1).
where DT = D - H, where H is the vertical distance from
the pressure sensor to the sonar transducer (H=15.7m
for US submarines [Rothrock et al, 2007] and D is the
keel depth (Figure 1), determined by a sensor that
measures the pressure. The range r is a distance to the
ice, measured by r=2tc, where 2t is the return signal as
a function of time (t ) and c is the mean sound speed in
the water column. The system precision for measured
draft, when the submarine is stationary under smooth ice,
is +6 cm [Rothrock et al, 2007] and the spatial resolution
ice

DT

H
a)

FIGURE 1. RELATION OF THE SUBMARINE,


ULS AND ICE DRAFT.

146

The mean draft in each 50 km region (dwc), corrected


with open water offset (Wc), is calculated by
subtracting the open-water correction from the mean
draft (dm) in the corresponding region. Because Wc is
negative, the open water offset appears as a positive
bias:
dwc = dm - Wci
(2)
One can see that wrongly identified open water due to
presence of thin ice, or change of the speed and depth
of the submarine could lead to negative bias in the
retrieved SID and has to be corrected.
Apart from the open water bias the error due to beam
width impact is essential and has to be considered in
the retrieved SID.

Open Water Correction of SID Derived from ULS

Beam Width Impact on Retrieved SID


Because the sonar beam is not narrow, the sonar
observes an area of the under-ice surface called the
footprint (Figure 1). A finite footprint diameter
causes the first return (FR) to be biased toward deeper
draft (dFR) compared to the mean draft within the
footprint (f) (dmf) or the draft exactly in the centre of
the footprint. The footprint error (b) can be measured

International Journal of Remote Sensing Applications Volume 4 Issue 4, December 2014

as a difference between the deepest draft (dFR) and the


mean draft (dmf) within the footprint and depends on
footprint width.
b=dFR dmf
(3)
The footprint bias varies with the nominal footprint
diameter or width (Wf), which in turn is proportional
to the beam width () and to the transducer depth. The
deeper the submarine, the broader the footprint is (Wf)
and the larger the bias is. The footprint width on the
sea level is:
Wf =2DTtg(/2)
(4)
where is the beam width and DT is the transducer
depth. For beam width 2o (NSIDC ULS), Wf = 0.035DT
[Rothrock et al, 2007]. For the ULS on UK submarine
with 3o beam width, Wf = 0.052DT. Vinje et al. (1998)
used high resolution two-dimensional maps of ice
draft measured in situ in the Greenland and Barents
Seas to estimate the footprint error (b) defined as the
difference between the deepest draft (d) within the
footprint and the draft (dmf) exactly in the centre of the
footprint. By forming averages over various footprint
sizes, Vinje et al. (1998) derived relationship between
the footprint error and the footprint (Wf):
b= a + bWf ,

TABLE 1. BEAM WIDTH ERROR (M) AS A FUNCTION OF ICE TYPE AND


TRANSDUCER DEPTH DT

DT75 (m) DT100 (m) DT130 (m) DT (m) DmT (m)


75
100
130
190
123.7
Fw 0.08 0.07
0.38
0.48
0.60
0.84
0.58
Mw 0.18 0.05
0.39
0.47
0.55
0.72
0.53
Ms 0.04 0.04
0.21
0.27
0.34
0.48
0.32
dm na na
0.33
0.37
0.5
0.69
0.48
0.10
0.11
0.14
0.19
na na
Wf na na
3.9
5.2
6.76
9.88
a

In rough ice (when >0) the observed draft is higher


than the real draft because the first return (FR)
arriving at the point O does not come from the point
directly above O but from the greatest detectable draft
in the footprint, Wf. For smooth ice, the FR target must
be at the zenith above the ULS and the resulting SID is
unbiased. In rough ice the FR target may not be at the
zenith, which will introduce a positive bias into the
retrieved ice drafts. The lowest return LR is the
smallest detectable draft in the real footprint, and in
rough ice, the LR may not be at the zenith also and the
difference between the FR and LR defines ice
roughness (Figure 1). Knowledge of transducer depth
along the track is required for estimation of beam
width bias. If the transducer depth is not known along
the submarine track, the beam width error can be
calculated for more likely transducer depth.
The total error, due to open water offset Wc and beam
width impact is calculated along the submarine track
by:
= Wc+ b
(6)

(5)

where the coefficients (a, b) depend also on ice type,


roughness and slope and are given in Table 1 for FYI
(First year winter ice (Fw)) and MYI (Multi- Year
summer (Ms) and Multi- Year winter (Mw). The beam
width errors, calculated by Equation 5, (for beam
width 3o (ULS of UK cruise), different transducer
depths (75m, 100m, 130m, 190m) and ice type) are
provided in Table 1 and Figure 2. Considering Table 1,
the retrieved draft could be positively biased in the
range from 39.5cm to 55.2cm for transducer depth in
the range between 75 and 130m and multi-year winter
ice. The ice slope impact within the footprint is not
considered in Table 1. The footprint, mean biases for
FYI and MYI and different transducer depth with
corresponding standard deviations are also listed in
Table 1. The mean bias for 3o beam width for all ice types
and seasons is estimated to be 0.48m with mean standard
deviation 0.15m.

Ice

www.ijrsa.org

Std
(m)
0.2
0.14
0.11
0.15
-

FIGURE 2. IMPACT OF TRANSDUCER DEPTH AND ICE TYPE


ON FOOTPRINT ERROR BIAS OF THE SID DERIVED FROM ULS.

The mean corrected sea ice draft (dmc) within the


length (50km) is calculated by:
dc = dm-

(7)

where dm is the mean raw draft within the region of


50km. The method for bias correction of ULS on
submarine is similar to that, applied for ULS data
correction from NSIDC. The error analyses show that
open water and footprint biases are the most
important biases, which have to be corrected along the
submarine track, using the algorithms described in
this section. The results of open water offset, total
147

www.ijrsa.org

International Journal of Remote Sensing Applications Volume 4 Issue 4, December 2014

biases and corrected SID derived from ULS, are


presented in the next sections.
Bias Correction of SID, Derived from ULS on UK
Submarine in Beaufort Sea in 2007.
The sea ice draft, measured during the Tireless
cruise in March 2007, in the Arctic, is obtained from an
along-track single-beam ULS, Admiralty Type 780
echo sounder, with 3 beam width [Wadhams et al,
2011]. The mean raw and corrected ice draft in 50km
spatial resolution with corresponding statistic
(variance, standard deviation, confidence interval,
minimum and maximum), open water offset and total
correction functions have been calculated. The b is
calculated along the submarine track by Equation (5)
and is calculated by Equation (6), considering the
footprint for 3o beam width and DT=75 m. The
algorithm allows to select the ice type and coefficients
(a, b) from Table 1. The location of the regions with
50km resolution is shown on Figure 3/a. The raw and
corrected sea ice draft, derived in March 2007 from
ULS on submarine in the Beaufort Sea, are compared
in Figure 3/b and the total bias correction and open
water offset for all ULS available regions with 50km
spatial resolution are shown in Figure 3/c.

The raw draft is usually higher than the corrected


draft because the ULS records the first return, which is
from the highest SID within the footprint. The mean
values of the SID from ULS, before, dm, and after
correction, dc, and the bias (dm-dc) are listed in Table 2.
Use of not corrected sea ice draft will overestimate SID
in the Beaufort Sea with 23cm. The estimated bias and
standard deviation (std) between the raw and
corrected SID (ULS) on UK submarine is similar to
that reported in [Rothrock et al, 2007] for SID,
available in NSIDC.
TABLE 2. MEAN

(dm) AND CORRECTED (dc) SID, RETRIEVED FROM ULS ON

UK SUBMARINE IN BEAUFORT SEA, 03/2007

(m)

dm
3.548

dc
3.317

Bias
0.231

std
0.118

The collocated open water offset and the total


correction averaged in 50 km and centred at the SID,
retrieved from RA2, are shown on Figure 3/d and the
locations are given in Table 3.
TABLE 3. LOCATION OF COLLOCATED SECTIONS OF ULS AND RA2
AVERAGED AREA

La
Lo

80.61
-4.04

81.06
-4.02

81.51
-4.05

81.96
-4.07

75.40
-144.6

75.10
-144.51

The corrected SID, which have been derived from ULS,


confirm that the open water and footprint errors have
significant impact on accuracy of retrieved SID and
have to be corrected. Bias corrected SID (with location
given in Table 3), have been validated with collocated
SID from RA2 (Envisat).
Applications of SID, Derived from ULS

a)

b)

c)

d)

FIGURE 3. A) LOCATION OF SID(ULS), 03/2007, BEAUFORT SEA;


B) RAW AND CORRECTED (RED) SID FROM ULS, 03/2007; C)
CORRECTION FUNCTIONS (WC AND ); D) AND WC WITH
50KM RESOLUTION COLLOCATED WITH SID FROM RA.

148

Collocated SID from moored ULS and ULS on


Submarine in Beaufort Sea with SID from RA2
(Envisat) from the data base (Round Robin Data
Package (RRDP)), developed as part of the European
Space Agency (ESA) Climate Change Initiative (CCI)
sea ice Essential Climate Variable (ECV) project [SICCI,
2013] have been used for SID validation and retrieval
of sea ice density. The data base used for this study
includes collocated snow depth and density from WC
with the same spatial resolution, time and location as
RA2 data and SID from ULS on submarine averaged
over 50 km along track, collocated with the mean
freeboard, derived from RA and RA2, averaged within
an area of 100 km radius centered at each transect
center. The sea ice freeboard is derived from ERS-1/2
RA and Envisat/ RA-2 as a difference of the measured
ice floe elevation and the local sea level, applying
necessary corrections and is averaged over one month

International Journal of Remote Sensing Applications Volume 4 Issue 4, December 2014

[SICCI, 2013].
Validation of the Bias Correction Algorithm for SID
from ULS
The impact of bias correction on retrieved SID from
ULS has been examined by comparison of collocated
SID (retrieved from ULS before and after bias
correction) with SID, which have been derived from
RA. On Figure 4/a are shown collocated SID, derived
from ULS in Beaufort Sea (BS) before and after bias
correction and SID, retrieved from Envisat/RA2. The
SID has been retrieved from the freeboard, derived
from RA2, applying the equation for hydrostatic
equilibrium:
dra=hi-hfi = (hss +hfii)/( w i),

(8)

where hi is the SIT and hfi is the retrieved freeboard


from RA. Collocated snow depth (hs) and density (s)
are taken from WC as a function of latitude, longitude
and month of the year in the Arctic [Warren and Rigor,
1999]. The algorithm (A1) used to calculate hi from the
freeboard derived from ERS1/2 and Envisat with ice
density
(i=900kg/m3)
and
water
density
(w=1030kg/m3) inserted in Equation 8 is applied to
derive dra, collocated with SID(ULS).

www.ijrsa.org

The mean and correlation coefficients for collocated


SID (RA) and SID (ULS) with 50km spatial resolution
(before (dm) and after bias correction (dc)) are listed in
Table 5. The mean absolute difference (abs (dms dra)=
0.1) of the raw SID derived from ULS and SID
retrieved from RA2 (dra) is reduced from 10cm to less
than 1mm after applying the algorithm for error
correction and the correlation coefficient is increased,
which confirms the improved accuracy of the
retrieved sea ice draft from ULS after error corrections
(Table 4, Figure 4).
TABLE 4. MEAN AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF THE RETRIEVED
FROM ULS AND ERROR CORRECTED SID (ULS).

mean
Mean(m)
Correlation

dm
2.4437
0.9

dra
2.343
1

dc
2.335
0.927

One can see that the total mean of the raw draft is
overestimated compared with the mean SID derived
from RA2 and the corrected one. The residuals
between corrected SID and that derived from radar
altimeter have decreased after applying error
correction algorithm. Error corrected SID(ULS) have
been used to retrieve i from the freeboard derived
from RA.
Retrieval of Sea Ice Density from SID
Sea Ice density is important ECV. It varies in wide
range [Kovacs, 1996, Alexandrov et al, 2010, Ackley, et
al, 1976]. Constant ice densities have been inserted in
the equation for hydrostatic equilibrium (Equation 8)
to retrieve SID from the freeboard, derived from RA,
leading to different SID with unknown accuracy. Sea
ice density dependence on sea ice freeboard has been
confirmed with field observations [Ackley, 1976],
laboratory study [Kovacs, 1996] and sensitivity
analyses [Djepa, 2014]. Djepa, (2014) developed and
validated an algorithm to retrieve variable sea ice
density considering the impact of ice type, snow
density and depth. The algorithm has been validated
with surface observations [Ackley et al, 1976],
laboratory study [Kovacs, 1996], sensitivity analyses
and collocated ULS and satellite observations. The
variable sea ice density (i) is retrieved from the
freeboard, derived from RA2, using the algorithm
developed by [Djepa, 2014] :

a)

b)

c)

FIGURE 4. COLLOCATED SID FROM ULS AND RA: A) BEFORE


AND AFTER ERROR CORRECTION; B) SID(ULS) VERSUS SID
FROM RA2 BEFORE ERROR CORRECTION;
C) AFTER ERROR CORRECTION

i = -c hfie + d

(9)

where
hfie = hfi + (hs s/imean)
c=214, d=948,

for 0.18m <hfie <0.37m,

149

www.ijrsa.org

International Journal of Remote Sensing Applications Volume 4 Issue 4, December 2014

freeboard derived from RA2/Envisat is given in Table


7. The mean i corresponds to presence of MYI, which
is confirmed with the mean draft (2.4m), corresponding also to MYI .

iMYmean= 882kg/m3 , over MYI


c=36.54, d=903.7, for hfie >0.37m,
iMYmean= 882kg/m3 , over MYI
c=95.05, d=930.4, for hfe<0.18m,

TABLE 6. STATISTIC OF THE I (KG/M3) RETRIEVED FROM RA2

iFYmean= 910kg/m3 , over FYI


The SID (dra(FD2)) retrieved from the freeboard,
derived from RA2 (by Equation 8), inserting variable
ice density (Equation 9) is validated with error
corrected collocated SID, derived from ULS in
Beaufort Sea and the statistic is given in Table 5.
TABLE 5. DRAFT STATISTIC OF BIAS CORRECTED SID (ULS), COLLOCATED
WITH SID (RA2) IN BEAUFORT SEA, 03/2007.

Variable (m)
Mean
Std
Bias
RMSE

dc(ULS)
2.365
0.582
0
na

dra(FD2)
2.351
0.562
-0.014
0.102

min
0.893

max
902.5

mean
895.8

Median
893.8

mode
893

std
3.709

The ice density is calculated as a function of ice type


and ice freeboard. The effective freeboard (the ice
scattering surface) is determined from the snow depth
and density. Equation 10 allows sea ice density
retrieval from the freeboard, measured by RA on
board ERS1, 2, Envisat, CryoSat-2 and future Sentinel
ESA missions, providing long time series of sea ice
densities distribution in the Arctic.
Conclusions

One can see that the bias (B=(dra(RA2)-dc(ULS)) and


RMSE are minimum when variable ice density
(Equation 9) is inserted in Equation 8.

FIGURE 5. SEA ICE DENSITY CALCULATED FROM THE


FREEBOARD DERIVED FROM RADAR ALTIMETER
ON BOARD ENVISAT

Equation 9 allows retrieving a new product, i, from


the freeboard, derived from RA. The sea ice density
calculated from the sea ice freeboard, retrieved from
RA2/Envisat is shown on Figure 5. The following
relationship of sea ice density and the freeboard,
retrieved from RA2 / Envisat has been derived:

Error corrected SID, derived from different ULS on


submarine with corresponding uncertainty analyses
are required for validation of SID, derived from
satellite altimetry, and for climate assessment.
Algorithms for correction of SID (retrieved from ULS
on a submarine) with open water offset and beam
width error, have been developed and applied to
correct SID, which has been retrieved from ULS in the
Beaufort Sea in 2007. A bias correction function of raw
SID, retrieved from ULS on Submarine is provided
and is compared with biases of the derived SID from
NSIDC. The obtained biases and standard deviation
are in the same range as reported ones for SID, derived
from ULS on US submarines. The comparison of dc
from ULS in Beaufort Sea with SID derived from RA2
(on board Envisat) demonstrated decreased biases
between the sea ice draft derived from ULS and
satellite radar altimetry, which confirms the improved
accuracy of the bias corrected SID derived from ULS.
The algorithms, developed for SID error correction,
have global application for SID correction (derived
from ULS on submarine cruises), providing long term
corrected SID in the Arctic.

(10)

The bias corrected SID, have been used for validation


of SID retrieval from the freeboard, which was derived
from RA2/Envisat. Comparison of SID, derived from
RA2, using variable ice density, with collocated error
corrected SID from ULS demonstrated minimum bias
and RMSE.

where p1 = -5.3364*105, p2 = 5.6431*105, p3 = -2.3308*105,


p4 = 46833, p5 = -4587.3 with norm of residuals 0.067.
The statistic of the retrieved ice density from the

Low resolution sea ice density product is retrieved


from the freeboard, derived from RA. The retrieved
variable ice density is essential climate variable

i=p1hfi5+p2hfi4+p3hfi3+p4hfi2+p5hfi+1072.1

150

International Journal of Remote Sensing Applications Volume 4 Issue 4, December 2014

required for improved energy balance and model


forecast.
Considering the importance of SIT and SID for climate,
NWP models and sea ice balance in the Arctic, the
above results will benefit current and future ESA and
NASA programs, climate change and numerical
prediction programs, providing more accurate SID
from ULS on Submarine for validation of climate
models and SID, which is derived from satellite
altimetry. The provided algorithm for sea ice density
retrieval from the freeboard derived from RA on
board ERS1, 2, Envisat, CryoSat-2 and future Sentinel
missions is essential contribution to climate research
and satellite remote sensing of the north latitudes.

www.ijrsa.org

Djepa V. Sensitivity Analyses of Sea Ice Thickness Retrieval


from Radar Altimeter. Journal of Surveying and
Mapping Engineering (JSME), v. 2, iss. 2, (2014)
Kovacs A.. Sea Ice. Part II. Estimating the full scale tensile,
flexural and compressive strength of first year ice.
(1996), CRREL Rept.
Kwok R. Satellite remote sensing of sea ice thickness and
kinematics a review. J. Glaciology. ( 2010).
Laxon, S. et al. CryoSat-2 estimates of Arctic sea ice
thickness and volume. Geophysical Research Letters,
40, (2013): 16.
Laxon, S., N. Peacock, and D. Smith. High inter-annual
variability of sea-ice thickness in the Arctic region.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Nature, 425 (2003): 947950.

The work is supported from the Newton Trust,


Cambridge University, UK and ESA SICCI project.
Thanks ESA/SICCI project partners for funding and
providing collocated satellite and submarine data.

Rothrock, D., and M. Wensnahan. The accuracy of sea-ice

REFERENCES

Rothrock, D., D. B. Percival, and M. Wensnahan. The

Ackley, S. F., W. D. Hibler, F. Kugzruk, A. Kovacs, and W. F.


Weeks. Thickness and roughness variations of Arctic
multiyear sea ice. CRREL Rep. (1976): 76-18, 24 pp., U.S.
Army Cold Regions Res. and Eng. Lab., Hanover, N.H.
Alexandrov V., S. Sandven, J. Wahlin, and O. M.
Johannessen. The relation between sea ice thickness and
freeboard in the arctic. The Cryosphere Discussion. 4
(2010): 373-380.
Theoretical

Basis

Document.

SICCI-ATBD

(http://icdc.zmaw.de/fileadmin/user_upload/ESA_SeaIce-ECV/SICCI_ATBDv1_D2.6_Issue1.1.pdf) (2013) v104-13.

Atmospheric

and

Oceanic

Technology,

(2007),

24(11:1936-49.
decline in arctic sea-ice thickness: Separating the spatial,

Acad. Publish. Co., Ltd.

Algorithm

drafts measured from U.S. Navy submarines. Journal of

annual, and interannual variability in a quarter century


of submarine data. J. Geophysical. Research, (2008), 113,
C05003, doi:10.1029/2007JC004252.
Vinje, T., N. Nordlund, and A. Kvambekk, 1998: Monitoring
ice thickness in Fram Strait. J. Geophys. Res., 103, 10 437
10 450, (1998).
Wadhams P., N. Hughes and J. Rodrigues. Arctic sea ice
thickness characteristics in winter 2004 and 2007 from
submarine sonar transects. J. Geophysical Res.,(2011),
116, C00E02
Warren S. and I. Rigor. Snow depth on Arctic sea ice. J.
Climate, 12, (1999).

151