{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02437880918893577, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005625879043600563, 'mean_word_length': 5.408408408408408, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Assessment of contemporary satellite sea ice thickness products for Arctic sea ice

Abstract. Advances in remote sensing of sea ice over the past two
decades have resulted in a wide variety of satellite-derived sea ice
thickness data products becoming publicly available. Selecting the most
appropriate product is challenging given end user objectives range from
incorporating satellite-derived thickness information in operational
activities, including sea ice forecasting, routing of maritime traffic and
search and rescue, to climate change analysis, longer-term modelling,
prediction and future planning. Depending on the use case, selecting the
most suitable satellite data product can depend on the region of interest,
data latency, and whether the data are provided routinely, for example via a
climate or maritime service provider. Here we examine a suite of current sea
ice thickness data products, collating key details of primary interest to
end users. We assess 8 years of sea ice thickness observations derived
from sensors on board the CryoSat-2 (CS2), Advanced Very-High-Resolution
Radiometer (AVHRR) and Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) satellites.
We evaluate the satellite-only observations with independent ice draft and
thickness measurements obtained from the Beaufort Gyre Exploration Project
(BGEP) upward looking sonar (ULS) instruments and Operation IceBridge (OIB),
respectively. We find a number of key differences among data products but
find that products utilizing CS2-only measurements are reliable for sea ice
thickness, particularly between ∼0.5 and 4 m. Among data
compared, a blended CS2-SMOS product was the most reliable for thin ice. Ice
thickness distributions at the end of winter appeared realistic when
compared with independent ice draft measurements, with the exception of
those derived from AVHRR. There is disagreement among the products in terms
of the magnitude of the mean thickness trends, especially in spring 2017.
Regional comparisons reveal noticeable differences in ice thickness between
products, particularly in the marginal seas in areas of considerable ship
traffic.
