首页> 外文期刊>The Cryosphere Discussions >Satellite passive microwave sea-ice concentration data set intercomparison: closed ice and ship-based observations
【24h】

Satellite passive microwave sea-ice concentration data set intercomparison: closed ice and ship-based observations

机译:卫星被动微波海冰浓度数据集交流:封闭的冰和船舶的观测

获取原文
       

摘要

We report on results of a systematic inter-comparison of 10 global sea-ice concentration (SIC) data products at 12.5 to 50.0km grid resolution for both the Arctic and the Antarctic. The products are compared with each other with respect to differences in SIC, sea-ice area (SIA), and sea-ice extent (SIE), and they are compared against a global wintertime near-100% reference SIC data set for closed pack ice conditions and against global year-round ship-based visual observations of the sea-ice cover. We can group the products based on the concept of their SIC retrieval algorithms. Group I consists of data sets using the self-optimizing EUMETSAT?OSI?SAF and ESA?CCI algorithms. Group II includes data using the Comiso bootstrap algorithm and the NOAA NSIDC sea-ice concentration climate data record (CDR). The standard NASA Team and the ARTIST Sea Ice (ASI) algorithms are put into group III, and NASA Team 2 is the only element of group IV. The three CDRs of group I (SICCI-25km, SICCI-50km, and OSI-450) are biased low compared to a 100% reference SIC data set with biases of ?0.4% to ?1.0% (Arctic) and ?0.3% to ?1.1% (Antarctic). Products of group II appear to be mostly biased high in the Arctic by between +1.0% and +3.5%, while their biases in the Antarctic range from ?0.2% to +0.9%. Group III product biases are different for the Arctic, +0.9% (NASA Team) and ?3.7% (ASI), but similar for the Antarctic, ?5.4% and ?5.6%, respectively. The standard deviation is smaller in the Arctic for the quoted group I products (1.9% to 2.9%) and Antarctic (2.5% to 3.1%) than for group II and III products: 3.6% to 5.0% for the Arctic and 4.0% to 6.5% for the Antarctic. We refer to the paper to understand why we could not give values for group IV here. We discuss the impact of truncating the SIC distribution, as naturally retrieved by the algorithms around the 100% sea-ice concentration end. We show that evaluation studies of such truncated SIC products can result in misleading statistics and favour data sets that systematically overestimate SIC. We describe a method to reconstruct the non-truncated distribution of SIC before the evaluation is performed. On the basis of this evaluation, we open a discussion about the overestimation of SIC in data products, with far-reaching consequences for surface heat flux estimations in winter. We also document inconsistencies in the behaviour of the weather filters used in products of group II, and we suggest advancing studies about the influence of these weather filters on SIA and SIE time series and their trends.
机译:我们对10个全球海冰浓度(SIC)数据产品在12.5〜50.0公里网格分辨率为北极和南极进行系统相互比较的结果报告。该产品与彼此相对于在SIC,海冰区(SIA),和海冰范围(SIE)的差异进行比较,并且它们对全球冬季相比,封闭的包的近100%基准SIC数据集冰情以及对海冰覆盖全球全年舰载目视观测。我们可以根据自己的SIC检索算法的概念群的产品。第一组包括使用自我优化EUMETSAT?OSI?SAF和ESA?CCI算法的数据集。组II包括使用自举科米索算法和NOAA NSIDC海冰浓度气候数据记录(CDR)数据。标准NASA队和ARTIST海冰(ASI)算法被投入III组,和NASA队2是IV族的唯一元素。组I(SICCI-25公里,SICCI-50公里,和OSI-450)的三个CDR被偏置低配的?0.4%偏压到?1.0%(北极)和η0.3%至相比于100%基准SIC数据集?1.1%(南极)。 II组产品似乎是由+ 1.0%之间和+ 3.5%被大多偏置在北极高,而其偏压在南极范围内?0.2%至+ 0.9%。第三组产品偏差分别为北极不同,+ 0.9%(NASA队)和?3.7%(ASI),但对南极,?5.4%类似和?5.6%。的标准偏差是在北极的引述组I的产品(1.9%到2.9%)和南极(2.5%至3.1%)比组II和III的产品更小:3.6%至5.0%为北极和4.0%至6.5%,为南极。我们指的是纸理解为什么我们不能为组IV给值在这里。我们讨论截断SIC分布,自然受到周围的100%海冰浓度结束算法检索的影响。我们表现​​出这种截断SIC产品是评估研究可能会导致误导性统计和青睐数据集系统性高估SIC。我们描述了一种方法进行评估之前重构SIC的非截短分布。在此评估的基础上,我们开一个讨论有关SIC的数据产品的高估,与冬季表面热流估计深远的影响。我们在第二组的产品中使用的过滤器天气的行为也文件不一致的地方,并建议有关SIA和SIE时间序列及其趋势,这些天气过滤器的影响,推进研究。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号