Full bibliography

Accurate satellite measurements of the thickness of Antarctic sea ice are urgently needed but pose a particular challenge. The Antarctic data presented here were produced using a method to derive the sea ice thickness from 1.4 GHz brightness temperatures previously developed for the Arctic, with only modified auxiliary data. The ability to observe the thickness of thin sea ice using this method is limited to cold conditions, meaning it is only reasonable during the freezing period, typically March to October. The Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) level-3 sea ice thickness product contains estimates of the sea ice thickness and its uncertainty up to a thickness of about 1 m. The sea ice thickness is provided as a daily average on a polar stereographic projection grid with a sample resolution of 12.5 km, while the SMOS brightness temperature data used have a footprint size of about 35–40 km in diameter. Data from SMOS have been available since 2010, and the mission's operation has been extended to continue until at least the end of 2025. Here we compare two versions of the SMOS Antarctic sea ice thickness product which are based on different level-1 input data (v3.2 based on SMOS L1C v620 and v3.3 based on SMOS L1C 724). A validation is performed to generate a first baseline reference for future improvements of the retrieval algorithm and synergies with other sensors. Sea ice thickness measurements to validate the SMOS product are particularly rare in Antarctica, especially during the winter season and for the valid range of thicknesses. From the available validation measurements, we selected datasets from the Weddell Sea that have varying degrees of representativeness: Helicopter-based EM Bird (HEM), Surface and Under-Ice Trawl (SUIT), and stationary Upward-Looking Sonars (ULS). While the helicopter can measure hundreds of kilometres, SUIT's use is limited to distances of a few kilometres and thus only captures a small fraction of an SMOS footprint. Compared to SMOS, the ULS are point measurements and multi-year time series are necessary to enable a statistically representative comparison. Only four of the ULS moorings have a temporal overlap with SMOS in the year 2010. Based on selected averaged HEM flights and monthly ULS climatologies, we find a small mean difference (bias) of less than 10 cm and a root mean square deviation of about 20 cm with a correlation coefficient R > 0.9 for the valid sea ice thickness range between 0 and about 1 m. The SMOS sea ice thickness showed an underestimate of about 40 cm with respect to the less representative SUIT validation data in the marginal ice zone. Compared with sea ice thickness outside the valid range, we find that SMOS strongly underestimates the real values, which underlines the need for combination with other sensors such as altimeters. In summary, the overall validity of the SMOS sea ice thickness for thin sea ice up to a thickness of about 1 m has been demonstrated through validation with multiple datasets. To ensure the quality of the SMOS product, an independent regional sea ice extent index was used for control. We found that the new version, v3.3, is slightly improved in terms of completeness, indicating fewer missing data. However, it is worth noting that the general characteristics of both datasets are very similar, also with the same limitations.

Publisher: Copernicus Publications