We report on results of an intercomparison of 10 global sea-ice
concentration (SIC) data products at 12.5 to 50.0 km grid resolution from
satellite passive microwave (PMW) observations. For this we use SIC
estimated from
We carry on the evaluation of sea-ice concentration (SIC) products derived from satellite passive microwave (PMW) observations. In Kern et al. (2019), we presented an evaluation of 10 PMW SIC products at 0 % and 100 % SIC and with respect to sea-ice observations along ship tracks. Another study focused on Arctic summer conditions, investigating the bias between these PMW SIC products and independent SIC and net ice surface fraction estimates based on MODerate resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) observations (Kern et al., 2020b). With this study, we shift our focus more towards intermediate SIC and utilize a much larger and, partly, more accurate reference data set than in the two earlier studies. The evaluation at 0 % SIC in Kern et al. (2019) utilized a few fixed open water locations only. The evaluation at 100 % SIC used near-100 % SIC estimates based on the analysis of freezing-season synthetic aperture radar (SAR) image pairs representing convergent ice motion coinciding with a complete ice coverage and therefore a high probability to encounter near-100 % SIC. Thus, we evaluated the PMW SIC products for one specific set of ice conditions only (winter and near-100 %). Kern et al. (2019) also presented results of an evaluation of PMW SIC against a multi-annual set of standardized manual visual ship-based observations of the ice conditions. These observations are, however, of limited accuracy and of limited representativity because the average accuracy is between 5 % and 10 %, and observations mostly represent sea-ice conditions where it is possible to navigate. In addition, to reduce noise, PMW and ship-based SIC were averaged over all observations along a ship-track within 1 d, representing sea-ice conditions across spatial scales that – in the worst case – vary by an order of magnitude. The averaging resulted in a reduction in the number of valid data pairs from approximately 15 000 to less than 800, i.e., about 400 per hemisphere.
Another aspect is that the accuracy of the hemispheric but also the regional sea-ice area (SIA) computed from PMW SIC estimates strongly depends on their accuracy. PMW SIC values biased high yield an overestimation of the SIA, whereas PMW SIC biased low results in an underestimation of the SIA. This seems not to be critical as long as the trend is correct (e.g., Ivanova et al., 2014) but limits the use of such SIA estimates for quantitative intercomparisons of climate model results against observations (e.g., Burgard et al., 2020). It is definitely important PMW SIC is 100 % where the actual SIC is 100 % to avoid artificially elevated ocean–atmosphere heat fluxes when used as a surface forcing. It is equally important PMW SIC is an accurate estimate of the open water fraction, hence providing 95 % where the actual SIC is 95 % due to leads and openings in the sea-ice cover. In addition, it is desirable to check the performance of PMW SIC products across the entire SIC range in order to have a reliable estimate of the actual ice cover in, for example, the marginal ice zone (MIZ). Here gradients in heat fluxes are often particularly large. A correct definition of and accurate SIC distribution within the MIZ are also crucial should SIC values be used to evaluate numerical models capable to simulate wave–sea ice interaction (e.g., Boutin et al., 2020; Nose et al., 2020). The ship-based SIC observations used in Kern et al. (2019) offer only limited potential to carry out this performance check because of the above-mentioned reasons, the small number of observations falling into the relevant SIC range of, e.g., 20 % to 80 %, and the larger observational error in this SIC range.
Therefore, in this paper we focus on the evaluation of PMW SIC products
against a large number of high-resolution binary sea-ice cover maps
estimated from satellite observations acquired in the visible frequency
range by NASA–USGS Landsat-5, Landsat-7, and Landsat-8. Overall, we used over 350 such
Landsat-based maps, corresponding to more than 10 000
Utilization of the high-resolution information provided by Landsat as a means for assessing satellite PMW SIC products dates back to the early 1980s when Comiso and Zwally (1982) compared Nimbus-7 Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) SIC with Landsat imagery. Since then a number of studies have used a small number of such images for SIC intercomparison and/or evaluation (e.g., Steffen and Maslanik, 1988; Steffen and Schweiger, 1991; Comiso and Steffen, 2001; Cavalieri et al., 2006; Wiebe et al., 2009; Lu et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2021). Landsat imagery has also recently been used for quality assessment of SIC estimates from Suomi National Polar-Orbiting Partnership Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (NPP VIIRS) observations (e.g., Liu et al., 2016). Common to all these studies is that they used a comparably small number of Landsat scenes, i.e., less than 10, an order of magnitude smaller than the 368 scenes used in this study (see above).
Analysis of visible satellite imagery for SIC estimation is quite
straightforward. A threshold-based method discriminating between open water
and ice is applied at the native spatial resolution (pixel size:
For evaluating the PMW SIC products across the SIC range, we prefer to use visible data instead of SAR data. The main advantages of SAR data would be the larger area covered by a single scene compared to Landsat (about 400 to 500 km in SAR wide-swath mode (WSM) vs. 180 km for Landsat) and their independence from daylight and cloud cover. In fact, many PMW SIC intercomparison studies have already used SAR images (e.g., Comiso et al., 1991; Dokken et al., 2000; Belchansky and Douglas, 2002; Kwok, 2002; Heinrichs et al., 2006; Andersen et al., 2007; Wiebe et al., 2009; Han and Kim, 2018). However, despite the past decade's substantial progress in developing and testing methods to translate SAR images into high-resolution SIC maps (e.g., Cooke and Scott, 2019; Karvonen, 2014, 2017; Komarov and Buehner, 2017, 2019; Leigh et al., 2014; Lohse et al., 2019; Ochilov and Clausi, 2012; Singha et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2016, 2017; Zakhvatkina et al., 2017; Boulze et al., 2020; Malmgren-Hansen et al., 2020; Wang and Li, 2021), some using machine learning approaches, the accuracy of the obtained SIC maps is not always satisfactory. Particularly at intermediate SIC – the main focus of this study – SAR signatures are often ambiguous, resulting in SAR SIC uncertainties too large for our purposes. Furthermore, applications of such methods to derive Southern Ocean SIC from SAR are comparably sparse. Therefore, we do not use SAR-based SIC maps.
We note that also Ice charting services (FMI, DMI, MET Norway, CIS, NATICE, AARI) heavily depend on SAR imagery for production of their ice charts. They thus have a large demand to automate processes of classification and are potentially most advanced in testing automated SAR SIC retrieval (e.g., Cheng et al., 2020). However, ice charts provide SIC ranges within polygons that are highly variable and heterogeneous in size and shape. Several studies used such ice charts for various intercomparison purposes (e.g., Shokr and Markus, 2006; Shokr and Agnew, 2013; Titchner and Rayner, 2014). Some centers providing operational sea-ice information also use such charts for routine quality checking of PMW SIC products. However, for our purpose of evaluating PMW SIC climate data records (CDRs) and similar SIC products, the limitations of such charts in terms of precision and accuracy – particularly in the intermediate SIC range (e.g., Cheng et al., 2020) – exclude their usage in this study.
After this introduction, this paper provides information about the PMW SIC products, the Landsat data set used, and the methods applied to derive SIC from the Landsat images (Sect. 2). We present our results in Sects. 3 and 4, discuss some additional aspects in Sect. 5, and conclude the study in Sect. 6.
The 10 different PMW SIC products considered in our study are summarized briefly in Table 1. We refrain from repeating information about the algorithms themselves, tie point selection, application of weather filters, consideration of land spillover effects, and so forth. All this information is provided in detail in Lavergne et al. (2019), Kern et al. (2019, their Appendix 7.1–7.6), and Kern et al. (2020b). The same applies to the fact that four of the products (SICCI-12km, SICCI-25km, SICCI-50km, and OSI-450) allow us to take into account the full SIC distribution at 0 % and 100 %. Such a distribution is the natural result of the SIC retrieval method used in all SIC products considered – except Nasa Team 2 (NT2). This distribution contains negative as well as SIC values above 100 % that are typically truncated, i.e., set to exactly 0 % and 100 %. We refer to Lavergne et al. (2019) and Kern et al. (2019) for more information in this regard.
Overview of the investigated PMW SIC products. Column “ID (algorithm)” holds the identifier we use henceforth to refer to the data product and which algorithm it uses. For those algorithms for which an AMSR sensor forms part of the name, we refer to AMSR-E or AMSR2, depending on the respective data used; we write AMSR if we refer to products from both satellites. Column “Input data” refers to the input satellite data for the data set, together with the frequencies and respective field-of-view dimensions.
In order to extend the time series of the Comiso bootstrap (CBT) algorithm and the NT2 algorithm using Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer aboard Earth Observation Satellite (AMSR-E) data beyond AMSR-E's capabilities to provide daily maps of the polar regions (3 October 2011), we use the respective unified product based on data from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer aboard GCOM-W1 (Global Change Observation Mission-Water): AMSR2 (Meier et al., 2018). With that we use five products based on AMSR-E and AMSR2 data and five products based on Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) and Special Sensor Microwave Imager and Sounder (SSMIS) data of the period 2002 through 2015. We do not use PMW SIC data from the period October 2011 through July 2012 because of the gap between AMSR-E and AMSR2. All PMW SIC data have daily temporal resolution. The grid type and grid resolution of all data sets is shown in Table 1. We estimate the Landsat SIC (see Sect. 2.2) at the grid resolution of the respective product. We chose the 25 km grid resolution version of the AMSR-E and AMSR2 products because this resolution is closer to the footprint sizes of the involved channels, and this is the resolution of the respective SSM/I and SSMIS versions of these products. We use version 3 of the NOAA/NSIDC SIC CDR (Peng et al., 2013; Meier et al., 2017) even though version 4 has been released (Meier et al., 2021) because we want to be consistent with the two previous papers (Kern et al., 2019, 2020b).
We use Landsat data of the Thematic Mapper (TM) on Landsat-5, the Enhanced
Thematic Mapper (ETM) on Landsat-7, and the Operational Land Imager (OLI) on
Landsat-8 obtained in level 1c GeoTIFF format from
We compute the top of atmosphere (TOA) reflectance for channels 2 to 4
(Landsat-5 and Landsat-7) or channels 3 to 5 (Landsat-8) following Chander et al.
(2007, 2009) and USGS (2019). Table 2 provides the wavelengths of these
channels (e.g., Chander et al., 2009; Barsi et al., 2014). The solar zenith
angle and other parameters required for this computation are either included
in the Landsat data files or are taken from Chander et al. (2007, 2009) and
the Landsat 8 data users handbook (USGS, 2019). To convert the TOA
reflectances to surface reflectances or surface albedo we follow the
approaches of Koepke (1989) and Knap et al. (1999). They assume that the TOA
reflectance (or planetary reflectance) equals the TOA albedo (or planetary
albedo) and that the TOA albedo
Overview about the wavelengths and bandwidths of the Landsat channels used.
For every broadband surface albedo map, we perform a supervised visual
classification into open water, bare/thin ice, and thick/snow-covered
ice. For that, we assume the respective surface class covers a Landsat pixel
entirely. We assign all dark pixels (with an albedo of, on average, smaller
than 0.06) to the open water class. We assign all bright pixels (with an
albedo of, on average, larger than 0.45) to the class thick/snow-covered
ice; all remaining pixels fall into the class bare/thin ice. We pay more
attention separating open water from ice very accurately than distinguishing
between bare/thin ice and thick/snow-covered ice. In every Landsat
albedo map we search for leads or openings, zoom into these, and perform
histogram-equalized slicing to visually identify – based on albedo values
and spatial structures – whether the leads or openings selected contain
open water. We
take the threshold value chosen to separate open water from ice from Pegau and Paulsen (2001). The threshold value chosen to
distinguish between bare/thin ice and thick/snow-covered ice is based on
Brandt et al. (2005) and Zatko and Warren (2015). They found an albedo of
around 0.33 for bare thin ice less than 30 cm thick and of around 0.42 for
snow-covered thin ice (5–10 cm thick) with a thin (
Usage of a three-class distribution is motivated by the fact that it has been shown that PMW SIC is often biased low over thin sea ice (e.g., Wensnahan et al., 1993; Cavalieri, 1994; Ivanova et al., 2015). Therefore, in addition to using the Landsat images just for a high-resolution ice–water discrimination, we also use them to derive the fraction of thin ice with the aim to discuss differences between Landsat SIC and PMW SIC in light of a potential impact by thin ice. However, we discarded this aim – but kept the classification results – because during analyses of the Landsat images we encountered ambiguities in surface albedos between snow-covered thin ice and bare thick ice. While there is little ambiguity between open water and ice, except for very thin dark nilas or ice rind (e.g., Zatko and Warren, 2015), resulting in high confidence of pixels classified as either open water or ice, the confidence of pixels classified as bare/thin or thick/snow-covered ice is considerably worse.
For the co-location, we first select a rectangular area within the PMW SIC
grid, EASE-2 for the SICCI-2 and OSI-450 products (EPSG: 6930 and 6931) and
polar-stereographic true at 70
Subsequently, we compute the Landsat SIC by summing over all 30 m pixels classified as ice that fall into the PMW SIC grid cells within the above-defined rectangular area. Because we do this is at the grid resolution of the PMW products, we obtain Landsat SIC maps at 12.5, 25.0, and 50.0 km grid resolution. We compare the resulting gridded Landsat SIC with the respective co-located PMW SIC by computing the mean difference PMW SIC minus Landsat SIC, its standard deviation, the median difference, and deriving a linear regression line and computing the linear correlation coefficient.
Based on a visual quality check of the obtained Landsat SIC maps we discard
Location of the Landsat scenes used. Panels
In order to estimate how Landsat SIC depends on the choice of the albedo
thresholds used to discriminate open water from ice and bare/thin ice from
thick/snow-covered ice, we repeat the classification into the three
surface classes using modified thresholds. We vary the albedo value for the
open water–ice discrimination by
Landsat SIC derived using the actual pair of albedo threshold
values (“Actual value”) and the four variations of them (see text)
averaged for 12 Landsat-8 scenes selected for the Northern Hemisphere (NH)
at 25 and 50 km grid resolution. The number to the right of the
Landsat SIC derived using the actual pair of albedo threshold
values (“Actual value”) and the four variations of them (see text)
averaged for 15 Landsat-8 scenes selected for the Southern Hemisphere (SH)
at 25 and 50 km grid resolution. The number to the right of the
As expected, changing the albedo value of the bare/thin ice–thick/snow-covered ice discrimination by
In our approach, we assume either ice or water to cover a Landsat pixel (
In order to quantify this positive bias better, it is useful to distinguish between sea-ice conditions during summer and winter and between pack ice and the MIZ, as well as to take into account the dimensions of leads/openings and ice floes. Distributions of lead width and floe size both follow a power law. Leads/openings and ice floes with dimensions smaller than the Landsat pixel size are orders of magnitude more abundant than wide leads/openings (e.g., Tschudi et al., 2002; Marcq and Weiss, 2012) and large ice floes (e.g., Steer et al., 2008; Toyota et al., 2011; Perovich and Jones, 2014).
Based on airborne digital camera visible imagery captured along tracks of Operation Icebridge (OIB) flights several
thousands' of kilometers long in
the Arctic in April 2010 and in the Antarctic in October 2009 analyzed by
Onana et al. (2013) with respect to the lead and open water fraction, we
find a SIC bias of less than 0.2 %. This value derived for an open water
fraction of
Next, we again take the results of Onana et al. (2013) but assume that the
thin ice identified in the OIB digital camera imagery adds to the open water
fraction thereby simulating a summer situation. For an open water fraction
of then
According to the high-resolution optical images used to infer the floe size distribution (Steer et al., 2008; Toyota et al., 2011, 2016) and similar studies (e.g., Paget et al., 2001; Lu et al., 2008; Zhang and Skjetne, 2015), the ice cover often comprises a large spectrum of floes. The larger and largest floes at the upper end of the floe-size distribution form the major fraction of the sea-ice area (in square kilometers) (e.g., Paget et al., 2001; Steer et al., 2008). A small number of large floes results in a smaller number of mixed ocean–ice Landsat pixels than a large number of smaller floes. Hence, where larger floes dominate, our Landsat SIC estimate is less biased than where small floes dominate. The effect of the ocean swell, the dominating force for fracturing ice floes according to, e.g., Toyota et al. (2016), is larger close to the ice edge than further inside the ice pack. Therefore, a larger number of smaller floes exists along the ice edge, suggesting a larger bias in our Landsat SIC near the ice edge than inside the ice pack. Without further independent information about the actual ice cover, we are not able to quantify this bias accurately.
Thus, for high-concentration winter conditions and for those cases during summer when ice floes are closely packed and openings between the floes are covered with brash ice and slush, the bias in Landsat SIC derived at the spatial scale of the PMW SIC products falls within the retrieval uncertainty range of our approach (see Tables 3 and 4). The bias could fall outside the uncertainty range near the ice edge during winter when sea ice drifts into comparably warm waters that inhibit ice formation in newly created openings; here biases as high as 10 % in a single PMW grid cell could occur. The bias could also fall outside the uncertainty range during summer; here biases between 5 % and 20 % in single PMW grid cells might occur depending on proximity to the ice edge and hence floe-size distribution and depending on conditions favoring/inhibiting herding of ice floes into bands.
In the following, we present and discuss results obtained in the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere. We preferred to not merge the results of Landsat-5 and Landsat-8 in the Northern Hemisphere because with that we have a relatively natural discrimination between cases dominated by first-year ice (Landsat-5) and cases dominated by mixed first-year–multiyear ice or multiyear ice (Landsat-8) (see Fig. 1).
Out of the 10 products, SICCI-25km, SICCI-50km, ASI-SSMI, and SICCI-12km offer the best linear agreement with Landsat SIC for first-year-ice-dominated cases as expressed, e.g., by the location of mean and median PMW SIC (red symbols) in Fig. 2 and the values of slope, intercept, and correlation coefficient listed in Table 5. CBT-SSMI, CBT-AMSRE, NOAA-CDR, and NT2-AMSRE have the smallest overall mean difference and zero median (Table 5). These four products exhibit, however, a considerable tail of near-100 % PMW SIC values stretching across almost the entire Landsat SIC range, pointing towards overestimation of Landsat SIC. ASI-SSMI and NT1-SSMI SIC exhibit the overall largest underestimation of Landsat SIC among the 10 products (Table 5).
Scatterplots of PMW SIC (
Summary of the statistical parameters displayed in Fig. 2. Diff,
DiffSDEV, and Median (all in percent SIC) are the mean difference PMW SIC
minus Landsat (LS) SIC, its standard deviation, and the median difference, Slope
and Intercept (in percent SIC) are the coefficients of the linear
regression, and
For cases with mixed first-year–multiyear or multiyear ice, SICCI-25km and SICCI-50km offer best linear agreement with Landsat SIC (Fig. 3). Most other products have a less convincing linear relationship. Like for first-year ice, CBT-SSMI, CBT-AMSR2, NOAA-CDR, and NT2-AMSR2 have the smallest mean difference for mixed first-year–multiyear or multiyear ice (Fig. 3, Table 6). However, particularly at higher Landsat SIC these products show many data pairs above the identity line, and the linear regressions through the mean and median PMW SIC (dashed and solid red lines) are also located above the identity line – in contrast to, e.g., SICCI-25km and SICCI-50km.
Scatterplots of PMW SIC (
Summary of statistical parameters shown in Fig. 3. See Table 5 for an explanation of the parameters given.
The linear agreement between PMW SIC and Landsat SIC improves in general for
all 10 products for mixed first-year–multiyear or multiyear ice cases
(Fig. 3, Table 6) compared to first-year ice (Fig. 2, Table 5). This
improvement is comparably large for OSI-450 (slope increases by
In the Southern Hemisphere, slope and location of the linear regression
lines, as well as of the mean and median PMW SIC values (red symbols), are more
similar between the 10 products (Fig. 4, Table 7). The linear agreement is
fairly good for SICCI-2 products, CBT-AMSR2, and ASI-SSMI. Like in the
Northern Hemisphere, SICCI-25km and SICCI-50km reveal the best linear
agreement with Landsat SIC, but SICCI-50km appears to be negatively biased.
This bias is associated with a large number of PMW SIC values of 0 % at
non-zero Landsat SIC which is also reflected by the mean and median PMW SIC
(compare Fig. 4c with Fig. 3c). We discuss this issue and the observation
that all products except CBT-SSMI, NOAA-CDR, and CBT-AMSR2 exhibit SIC values
below about 10 %–15 %, while these three products lack values in the PMW SIC
range between 0 % and
Scatterplots of PMW SIC (
Summary of statistical parameters shown in Fig. 4. See Table 5 for an explanation of the parameters given.
Like in the Northern Hemisphere (Table 6), the magnitude of the SIC
difference is smallest for NT2-AMSR2, NOAA-CDR, CBT-SSMI, and CBT-AMSR2 and
largest for NT1-SSMI and ASI-SSMI. Of all 10 products, NT2-AMSR2 (Fig. 4j)
offers the most asymmetric SIC distribution and a considerable
overestimation of Landsat SIC in the range between
Overall, agreement between PMW SIC and Landsat SIC differs between the two hemispheres. For all products, we find a substantially larger scatter of SIC values around the identity line in the Southern Hemisphere (Sect. 3.2) than the Northern Hemisphere (Sect. 3.1). On the one hand, this larger scatter in the Southern Hemisphere could be the result of a considerably larger number of Landsat scenes of cases with low SIC, naturally resulting in a larger spread of the SIC. In addition, the majority of the Landsat scenes in the Southern Hemisphere reflect late-spring/summer conditions. During such conditions, snow metamorphism due to melt and melt–refreeze cycles substantially change the sea-ice surface emissivity on daily timescales and sub-grid-cell-size spatial scales (e.g., Willmes et al., 2014), causing a larger scatter in SIC. Another factor impacting the sea-ice emissivity is flooding at the interface between the sea ice and the snow cover formation, causing considerable variations in basal snow layer wetness and salinity on similar spatiotemporal scales. On the other hand, we are dealing with an unknown amount of overestimation of the actual sea-ice concentration by our Landsat SIC during summer melt due to mixed ocean–ice Landsat pixels (Sect. 2.2.4). We refer to Sects. 4.3, 5.1 and 5.2 for more discussion on this issue.
In general, we find the scatter is larger for products with finer grid resolution, e.g., SICCI-12km and ASI-SSMI, than for the coarser-grid-resolution products. The larger number of valid SIC pairs of the high-resolution products result in more scatter due to the inherent retrieval noise even though the capability to resolve smaller-scale SIC variations is better for the fine-resolution than for the coarser-resolution products (see Sect. 5.1). In addition, a mismatch in the location of, for example, a 10 km scale patch of ice between a Landsat scene and a PMW SIC product has a substantially larger influence on the SIC difference at 12.5 than at 25 or 50 km grid resolution. The fact that oversampling is much larger at 12.5 than at 50 km plays a role here also. Even using simulated brightness temperatures one gets a large spread between a reference SIC and the PMW SIC due to resolution mismatch (see, e.g., Tonboe et al., 2016). We discuss the effect of different footprint sizes and grid resolutions (see Table 1) in more detail in Sect. 5.1.
SICCI-2 products and OSI-450 provide access to SIC values above 100 % and below 0 % that are naturally retrieved due to the brightness temperature distribution around the ice and water tie points used. Kern et al. (2019) found that incorporation of these so-called off-range or non-truncated SIC values provides a more accurate estimate of accuracy, i.e., difference to the true SIC value, and precision, i.e., standard deviation of this difference. Table 8 reveals that independent of the ice type, the magnitude of the mean difference decreases, while the slope of the linear regression increases, becoming closer to unity in most cases, in agreement with Kern et al. (2019). Of particular interest in this regard are high-concentration cases discussed in more detail in Sect. 4.2 but also the effect of the truncation at 0 % in the context of filters used to mitigate spurious SIC values (see Sect. 5.3).
Comparison of statistical parameters listed in Tables 5–7 in both hemispheres for SICCI-2 and OSI-450 products using truncated or non-truncated (near-100 % SIC) PMW SIC data. See Table 5 for an explanation of the parameters given. Top (LS5, NH 2003–2011) is for first-year-ice-dominated cases, middle (LS8, NH 2013–2015) is for mixed first-year–multiyear and multiyear ice cases, both Northern Hemisphere, and bottom (LS8, SH 2013–2015) is for the Southern Hemisphere. The overall median differences do not change and are not listed again.
In the previous section, we showed results independent of the ice regime (see below) – except for a general discussion of the observed differences between predominantly first-year ice (Landsat-5) and a mixture of first-year–multiyear or multiyear ice (Landsat-8). This section deals with our comparison between PMW SIC and Landsat SIC for the following ice regimes: “ice edge”, “leads and openings” meaning cases with leads and coastal polynyas or openings, “heterogeneous ice” meaning cases with irregularly shaped openings in the ice pack, “freeze-up”, “high-concentration ice”, and “melt conditions” (see Table S1 in the Supplement). We show in more detail results of the last three ice regimes. Freeze-up cases are characterized by a comparably large fraction of new and thin ice, an ice type for which some of the SIC products investigated here are already known to be negatively biased from preliminary work based on Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) thin ice thickness observations (Ivanova et al., 2015). We elaborate on their findings using an alternative data set. Investigating high-concentration cases in more detail aids in a better understanding of saturation effects near 100 % caused by truncating PMW SIC at 100 %, expanding on the work of Kern et al. (2019) and refining our knowledge of SIC precision and accuracy for high-concentration regions and hence application potential of the products for surface heat flux computations. Finally, melt conditions – even without melt ponds – represent a multitude of different snow and sea-ice conditions causing enhanced variability in the sea-ice microwave emissivity (e.g., Willmes et al., 2014), which in turn can result in biases in PMW SIC products of both signs in the Arctic (Kern et al., 2016, 2020b). Here we have the opportunity to better quantify such biases especially for the Antarctic. For all remaining regimes, we show examples in Figs. S3–S8 in the Supplement and include their results of the statistical comparison into our summary figures (Figs. 11 and 12) but refrain from a detailed discussion. For regimes “ice edge” and “leads and openings” such a discussion would require a comprehensive investigation of open water and land spillover filters (see Sect. 5.3) which is beyond the scope of this paper. For regime “heterogeneous ice”, application of a more accurate evaluation SIC data set seems to be advisable given the identified shortcomings of the one used (see Sect. 2.2.4) before going into more detail.
These are cases when according to the date, geographic location, and
information in the Landsat scene freeze-up has commenced. We select Landsat
scenes containing a considerable fraction of new and thin ice; these are
acquired in September and February/March in the Northern Hemisphere and Southern
Hemisphere, respectively. We have only a few such cases in both hemispheres
(see Table S1). We expect PMW SIC
underestimates Landsat SIC (LSIC) – particularly for young and thin ice
with a thickness
Landsat SIC, PMW SIC, and the difference PMW SIC minus Landsat SIC (LSIC) for all 10 products for a freeze-up case in the Fram Strait on 15 September 2015. The Landsat surface class map at the top left shows the following: white: thick/snow-covered ice; gray: bare/thin ice; black: open water. The red star marks the location of Henrik Krøyer Holme station (see text). White and gray pixels are used to compute maps of gridded LSIC at 12.5, 25, and 50 km, respectively (blue: outside Landsat image). A subset of SICCI-12km SIC grid cells shown at the top right illustrates the array used for the collocation. Panels in the remaining four rows show PMW SIC and PMW SIC minus LSIC for all 10 products. Land is flagged brown in the SIC panels and black in the SIC difference panels; it differs between the PMW products. The land masks in the two bigger maps at the top come from the plotting routine used. LSIC maps use the land masks of the SICCI-2 products.
The main reason for this observation is the actual ice condition. Very
likely the greyish area represents a mixture of sub-pixel-size, i.e., less
than
Figure 6 illustrates a freeze-up case in Pine Island Bay, Amundsen Sea,
Southern Ocean, on 12 March 2014. The classified Landsat-8 scene features a
predominant coverage with new/young ice, some open water towards the coast,
and little thick/snow-covered ice and few icebergs in the open bay. Landsat
SIC is mostly around 90 %; only a few grid cells with low SIC exist close
to the coast at 12.5 and 25 km grid resolution. A total of 9 of the 10 PMW SIC
products reveal considerably lower SIC values, with SICCI-25km, OSI-450,
NT1-SSMI, and ASI-SSMI exhibiting particularly large widespread negative
differences with magnitude
Landsat SIC, PMW SIC, and the difference PMW SIC minus Landsat SIC for all 10 products for a scene near the coast during freeze-up in Pine Island Bay, Amundsen Sea, Southern Ocean, on 12 March 2014. The red star in the top left map marks the location of the Pine Island Glacier Automatic Weather Station (see text). Some of the white patches near the coast in this map are actually glacier ice not adequately flagged by the land mask. See Fig. 5 for more details.
The widespread underestimation of Landsat SIC by almost all products agrees
very well with the findings of Ivanova et al. (2015), albeit a bit large in
magnitude. The new ice encountered in our example comprises a comparably
large fraction of frazil, grease, and/or small pancake ice compared to
nilas and gray/gray-white ice in Ivanova et al. (2015). Because Pine Island
Glacier Automatic Weather Station (see star in top left map of Fig. 6)
reported air temperatures between
Table 9 summarizes our results of the freeze-up cases for which we expect,
overall, an underestimation of Landsat SIC, i.e., a negative bias, due to a
notable fraction of new/thin ice (see Ivanova et al., 2015). In the
Northern Hemisphere, performance of the products differs a lot. We find
positive biases for CBT-SSMI, CBT-AMSR2, NOAA-CDR, and NT2-AMSR2 and large
negative biases for the remaining products. SICCI-25km offers the best
linear agreement with Landsat SIC. In the Southern Hemisphere, a number of
products have a regression line slope close to unity, a small intercept, and
a squared linear correlation coefficient
Summary of statistical results obtained for three freeze-up cases in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and for 11 freeze-up cases in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) using Landsat 8 data. See Table 5 for an explanation of the parameters given.
These are cases when the Landsat scene indicates either a closed ice cover without any leads or openings or an almost closed ice cover with few refrozen leads or openings, resulting in near-100 % Landsat SIC. In the ideal case, we expect PMW SIC is close to 100 %. Figure 7 illustrates such a case for 4 April 2015 in the Beaufort Sea, Arctic Ocean. Landsat SIC is 100.0 %. All 10 PMW SIC products exhibit quite high sea-ice concentrations – particularly SICCI-50km, NOAA-CDR, and NT2-AMSR2. However, the difference maps clearly reveal a (very) small and negative bias for all PMW products. This bias is largest in magnitude for SICCI-12km and ASI-SSMI and smallest in magnitude for NT2-AMSR2.
Landsat SIC, PMW SIC, and the difference PMW SIC minus Landsat SIC for all 10 products for a high-concentration scene in the Beaufort Sea, Arctic Ocean, on 4 April 2015. See Fig. 5 for a description of the maps shown.
Table 10 summarizes the results obtained for, in total, 40 high-concentration cases in the Northern Hemisphere: 28 first-year-ice-dominated scenes (Landsat-5) and 12 scenes of mixed first-year–multiyear or multiyear ice cases (Landsat-8). We find the largest biases for SICCI-12km and ASI-SSMI independent of ice type. Except for CBT-AMSR and NT2-AMSR, all products exhibit a larger bias for first-year ice cases than mixed first-year–multiyear or multiyear ice cases. We hypothesize that the different biases between PMW and Landsat SIC for these near-100 % cases are caused by the different capabilities of the respective algorithms to derive an accurate SIC independent of ice type – as stated already in Sect. 3.1. NT1-SSMI and ASI-SSMI appear to have the largest difficulties with the different ice types encountered because their biases vary most. CBT-SSMI, CBT-AMSR, NOAA-CDR, and NT2-AMSRE have a median difference of 0.0 % independent of ice type – similar to Tables 5 and 6. For SICCI-2 products and OSI-450, median differences are smaller in magnitude than for all ice and approach zero for the mixed first-year–multiyear or multiyear ice cases.
Summary of statistical results obtained in the Northern Hemisphere
for 28 cases with first-year ice (top, LS5, NH 2003–2011) and for 12 cases
with mixed first-year–multiyear or multiyear ice (bottom, LS8, NH
2013–2015). See Table 5 for an explanation of the parameters shown. For
SICCI-2 and OSI-450 products, we include in all rows but “
Using non-truncated SIC of SICCI-2 products and OSI-450 (see also Table 8)
reduces the magnitude of the bias by between 0.5 % for SICCI-50km and 2.1 % for SICCI-12km for the mixed first-year–multiyear or multiyear ice
cases (LS8) and less than that for the first-year ice cases. As expected,
the standard deviation of the bias increases using non-truncated SIC. The
other six PMW products set SIC values
Figure 8 illustrates a high-concentration case in the Weddell Sea, Southern Ocean, on 12 March 2015. A total of 6 of the 10 PMW SIC products show almost 100 % sea-ice concentration and almost zero bias. We only find notable deviations from 100 % concomitant with a small negative bias for ASI-SSMI, CBT-SSMI, CBT-AMSR2, and SICCI-12km. For our four high-concentration cases in the Southern Ocean (Table 11), we find the largest overall bias for ASI-SSMI. Most products reveal a bias of magnitude 0.3 % or smaller.
Landsat SIC, PMW SIC, and the difference PMW SIC minus Landsat SIC for all 10 products for a high-concentration scene in the Weddell Sea, Southern Ocean, on 12 March 2015. See Fig. 5 for a description of the maps shown.
Summary of statistical results obtained for the four high-concentration cases in the Southern Hemisphere. See Table 5 for an explanation of the parameters shown. For SICCI-2 and OSI-450 products, we include in rows “Diff”, “DiffSDEV”, and “Median” values obtained using non-truncated SIC to the right of the “/”.
Using non-truncated SICCI-2 and OSI-450 SIC results in positive biases,
ranging between 1.8 % for OSI-450 and 2.7 % for SICCI-50km (Table 11,
values to the right of the “/”). This amounts to an increase in the mean
SICCI-2 and OSI-450 SIC for these cases by
For melt-condition cases, we select Landsat scenes by means of the calendar date. In the Northern Hemisphere, we consider the time period 15 May to 31 May; in the Southern Hemisphere, we use the time period 15 November to 28 February. We do not include Landsat scenes subject to melt ponding on sea ice, e.g., during the months of June through August; this topic is covered in Kern et al. (2020b).
In the Northern Hemisphere (Table 12), we find positive and comparably small
biases for CBT-SSMI, CBT-AMSR2, NOAA-CDR, and NT2-AMSR2 and negative biases for
all other products. We find the best quality of the linear agreement between
PMW SIC and Landsat SIC for SICCI-25km, followed by SICCI-50km and
SICCI-12km. According to Kern et al. (2020b), the second half of May is
characterized by an upswing in the number and magnitude of SIC values
Summary of statistical results obtained for 15 melt-condition cases (without melt ponds) in the Northern Hemisphere. See Table 5 for an explanation of the parameters shown. Numbers added to the right of the “/” for SICCI-2 and OSI-450 products denote the results obtained using non-truncated SIC.
Figure 9 illustrates a typical case of late-summer melt conditions in the
Ross Sea, Southern Ocean. The classified Landsat-8 image shows a
heterogeneous mixture of black, gray, and white pixels. The gray pixels
denote a mixture of open water and thicker ice, possibly brash ice, sea ice
with a wet or even flooded snow cover, or bare relatively thick ice from
which the snow has been washed off. New/young ice is unlikely according to
6 hourly forecasts of the Antarctic Mesoscale Prediction System (AMPS),
revealing near-surface temperatures around
Landsat SIC, PMW SIC, and difference PMW SIC minus Landsat SIC for all 10 products for a melt-condition case in the Ross Sea, Southern Ocean, on 29 January 2014. See Fig. 5 for more description of the maps shown.
PMW SIC distributions match well with Landsat SIC, which is
Overall, we find negative biases for 9 of the 10 products in the
Southern Hemisphere (Table 13). These are smallest in magnitude for CBT-SSMI
and NOAA-CDR (
Summary of statistical results obtained for 45 melt-condition cases in the Southern Hemisphere. See caption of Table 5 for an explanation of the parameters given. Numbers added to the right of the “/” for SICCI-2 products and OSI-450 denote results obtained using non-truncated SIC.
On the one hand, the negative biases (Fig. 9, Table 13) agree well with results of earlier comparisons between Southern Hemisphere summer PMW SIC estimates and ship-based observations of the sea-ice cover (e.g., Worby and Comiso, 2004; Ozsoy-Cicek et al., 2009). These studies hypothesized that underestimation of the actual sea-ice concentration in PMW SIC products is primarily caused by wet, flooded sea ice exhibiting a similar surface emissivity as open water and hence looking like open water in PMW imagery. On the other hand, an unknown fraction of these negative biases could be caused by our Landsat SIC estimates being biased high because of the reasons laid out in Sect. 2.2.4 and the respective Supplement section.
SICCI-25km and SICCI-50km SIC have a grid resolution close to the actual
algorithm resolution largely determined by the native resolution of the
lowest-frequency channel used (see field-of-view dimensions in Table 1).
This is not the case for, e.g., CBT-SSMI or OSI-450. Actually, we find a
relatively poor performance of OSI-450 in comparison to SICCI-25km (see
Tables 5–7) – albeit the retrieval algorithm is exactly the same. We
hypothesize that the coarser native resolution of the satellite data used
for OSI-450 provides one of the main explanations for this observation.
SICCI-25km uses AMSR-E and AMSR2 brightness temperatures observed at spatial
resolutions (footprint sizes) between
Our results confirm the stated impact of the native spatial resolution on potential biases between PMW SIC and Landsat SIC very well. For instance, out of the 10 products, ASI-SSMI and SICCI-12km both incorporating high-frequency, fine-spatial-resolution imagery channels provide the third and fourth best linear fits in the Northern Hemisphere (Tables 5 and 6) and the third and fifth best linear fits in the Southern Hemisphere. SICCI-12km actually performs best out of the four SICCI-2 and OSI-450 products in the Southern Hemisphere (Table 7). Our Landsat data set of the Southern Hemisphere contains more cases of ice regimes (see Sect. 4) with variable open water fractions such as “heterogeneous ice”, “leads/openings”, “freeze-up”, and “ice edge” than the one of the Northern Hemisphere (see Table S1). Because a SIC product at finer spatial resolution is capable of depicting such variable open water fractions better and of observing the full SIC range more adequately, it seems reasonable to have a better linear agreement between Landsat SIC and, e.g., SICCI-12km SIC in the Southern Hemisphere than the Northern Hemisphere (compare Figs. 3 and 4 with respect to low SIC).
However, ASI-SSMI does not show better results in the Southern Hemisphere than the Northern Hemisphere when compared to, e.g., NT1-SSMI or SICCI-2 products. ASI-SSMI utilizes near-90 GHz brightness temperatures only, while SICCI-12km combines near-90 GHz with 19 GHz brightness temperatures. Atmospheric effects known to cause biases in near-90 GHz PMW SIC products (Kern, 2004; Ivanova et al., 2015) therefore have less impact on SICCI-12km than ASI-SSMI SIC. In addition, all SICCI-2 products utilize atmospherically corrected brightness temperatures, while ASI-SSMI utilizes uncorrected brightness temperatures. The fact that most of our Landsat scenes in the Southern Hemisphere represent atmospheric conditions during summer melt and hence at a comparably higher water vapor load than in the Northern Hemisphere fits into this picture. While atmospheric effects are efficiently mitigated for SICCI-12km in both hemispheres, these are larger for ASI-SSMI in the Southern Hemisphere than the Northern Hemisphere.
At this point, we look at the difference between the PMW SIC minus Landsat
SIC values obtained in the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere
from a different perspective. Ice conditions represented by our Landsat SIC
data set comprise more cases with melt conditions and at the ice edge in the
Southern Hemisphere (see Table S1). These
conditions are likely particularly subject to the positive bias in Landsat
SIC due to mixed pixels described in Sect. 2.2.4 and the respective
Supplement section. Therefore, we can expect that the positive SIC
difference is, on average, larger in the Southern Hemisphere than the Northern
Hemisphere. We compare the differences listed in Tables 5, 6, and 7 and find
the following. OSI-450, SICCI-12km, and SICCI-25km exhibit small changes in
the SIC differences between
In this subsection, we comment on the observation that in the scatterplots
of the Northern Hemisphere (Figs. 2 and 3) particularly the SICCI-2 products
but also OSI-450, CBT-AMSR, and NT2-AMSR exhibit a relatively large number of
cases with PMW
We hypothesize this observation is linked to the various filters applied.
Examples of such filters are the weather or open water filter (OWF) and the
land spillover filter (LSO). The OWF reduces the number of erroneous SIC
values resulting from unaccounted atmospheric influences, for example high
cloud liquid water contents. OWF is effective along the ice edge and the
adjacent open water. One common realization of the OWF is to set PMW
The SICCI-2 and OSI-450 products offer the full SIC distribution around 0 % and around 100 % SIC and the opportunity to reverse-engineer the
effect of flags, i.e., switch the effect of certain flags on or off.
Therefore, we are able to investigate the impact of the OWF and the LSO on
our comparison results, an investigation not possible for the six other
products. We choose ice regime “leads/openings” in the Southern Hemisphere
in the years 2013–2015 and look, as an example for such an investigation, at the
impact of the two above-mentioned filters on SICCI-50km SIC (Fig. 10). We
switch off these flags together with the near-100 % SIC flag to work with
a more realistic SIC distribution at the high-concentration end. We do not
find even one PMW
Scatterplots of SICCI-50km SIC (
If we switch off the OWF, i.e., include the originally retrieved SIC values
for those grid cells where the OWF is applied, we get a number of SIC data
pairs concentrated between Landsat SIC (0 %–20 %) and SICCI-50km (0 %–30 %) that can be clearly associated with the OWF (compare Fig. 10c
with panels a and d). The magnitude of the difference decreases by only 0.5 %, while the standard deviation stays the same. There is still a
comparably large number of cases with SICCI-50km
Summary of all linear regression lines obtained for the comparison between Landsat SIC and PMW SIC for all ice regimes – except high-concentration ice. Columns denote, from left to right, Landsat-5 Arctic (i.e., first-year ice), Landsat-8 Arctic (i.e., mixed first-year–multiyear ice and multiyear ice), and Landsat-8 Antarctic. Ice regimes are sorted per row from top to bottom. Different colors and line styles denote different products as indicated. The solid black line denotes the identity line. Note “AMSRE” refers to both AMSRE (Landsat-5) and AMSR2 (Landsat-8).
Illustration of the statistical parameters of the comparison between Landsat SIC and PMW SIC for all ice regimes. Rows denote, from top to bottom, first-year ice Arctic (Landsat-5), mixed first-year–multiyear ice and multiyear ice Arctic (Landsat-8), and all ice Antarctic (Landsat-8). Columns denote, from left to right, accuracy (difference PMW SIC minus Landsat SIC), precision (standard deviation of the SIC difference), and squared linear correlation coefficient. The uni-colored rows denote cases left out either because these ice regimes are not populated (topmost row of panels) or because the retrieval of parameters did not make sense (squared linear correlation for ice regime “high concentration”). Note “AMSRE” refers to both AMSRE (Landsat-5) and AMSR2 (Landsat-8).
We observe a similar tendency for all other ice regimes where the LSO is
applied, e.g., “freeze-up” or “melt conditions”, in the Southern Hemisphere and in
the Northern Hemisphere, and for SICCI-25km and SICCI-12km as well (see
Tables S4 and S5 in the Supplement). However, we find far
fewer SIC data pairs subject to LSO filtering for OSI-450; hence the effect
of switching on or off the LSO is comparably small. We hypothesize that this
could be explained by the different native resolution of the satellite
data used, the different sampling, and the different grid cell size and
spacing (see Sect. 5.1). However, testing this hypothesis is beyond the
scope of this paper. For the SICCI-2 SIC products, we can confirm the
hypothesis that the comparably large number of PMW
In this paper, we present results of an evaluation of 10 passive microwave
(PMW) SIC products against SIC estimates derived from more than 350
clear-sky Landsat visible images acquired in the Northern Hemisphere during
mostly late winter and spring (March through May) and in the Southern
Hemisphere during spring, summer, and early fall (October through March). We
estimate Landsat SIC at the grid resolution of the PMW SIC products using
results of supervised classification of Landsat broadband albedo maps into
ice and water at 30 m pixel resolution. The comparison between PMW and
Landsat SIC is carried out based on all valid collocated SIC map pairs but
also based on subsets of these pairs defining certain ice regimes. These ice
regimes are “high concentration”, “freeze-up”, “ice edge”,
“leads/openings”, “heterogeneous ice”, and “melt conditions”. Our
comparison uses statistical parameters such as the mean difference between
PMW and Landsat SIC and its standard deviation, the median difference, and
parameters describing the linear agreement: slope and intercept of a linear
regression and the linear regression coefficient. We summarize these
parameters in Figs. 11 and 12 and make the following conclusions:
It is important to take an integrated view of the statistical parameters
because, for instance, a small overall bias is not necessarily associated
with a good linear agreement across the entire SIC range, and a perfect
linear agreement with a slope close to unity and a high correlation could be
associated with a large overall bias. It is also important to take into account the expected influences of, e.g.,
melt conditions (Sect. 4.3) and fraction of new/thin ice (Sect. 4.1), as
well as sub-pixel-size ocean–ice mixture (Sect. 2.2.4), on both PMW SIC and
Landsat SIC. SICCI-25km and SICCI-50km SIC offer overall the best linear agreement to
Landsat SIC as demonstrated in Fig. 11 and the right column of Fig. 12, right column. This is
illustrated as well by mean and median PMW SIC values computed for Landsat
SIC bins aligned very well along the identity line (Figs. 2–4), with
exceptions being explainable by filters applied in the products (see Sect. 5.3). The magnitude of the difference PMW SIC minus Landsat SIC is, however,
larger than for the two CBT products and NOAA-CDR, almost without exception
(Fig. 12, left column). CBT-SSMI, CBT-AMSR, NOAA-CDR, and NT2-AMSR offer the smallest overall
magnitude of the difference PMW SIC minus Landsat SIC (Fig. 12, left
column). Except for CBT-AMSR2 in the Southern Hemisphere, mean and median
PMW SIC values align less well along the identity line than for SICCI-25km
and SICCI-50km in Figs. 2–4. The linear agreement is considerably worse
than for SICCI-25km and SICCI-50km (Fig. 11 and right column of Fig. 12). NT2-AMSR is the only product overestimating Landsat SIC in the Southern
Hemisphere – overall but also for almost all ice regimes. This is
problematic in view of the potential positive bias of Landsat SIC for ice
conditions with an elevated number of mixed ocean–ice Landsat pixels (see
Sect. 2.2.4), e.g., ice regimes “melt conditions”, “ice edge”, and
“freeze-up”.
All products provide SIC data truncated to the range 0 % to 100 %, albeit all algorithms, except NT2-AMSR, use a SIC retrieval procedure which in principle provides a full SIC distribution around the end-members 0 % and 100 %. Only the SICCI-2 products and OSI-450 allow consideration of the full SIC distribution. While our main results are derived with the truncated SIC distribution, we demonstrate that, without exception, using the full SIC distribution reduces the mean difference and enhances the quality of the linear agreement between PMW SIC and Landsat SIC which is already superior for SICCI-25km and SICCI-50km. It is important to consider this observation when comparing the results obtained with the 10 products against each other in order to avoid misinterpretation. While we obtain the smallest SIC differences for CBT-SSMI, CBT-AMSR, NOAA-CDR, and NT2-AMSR, these are likely to change using the full SIC distribution. This applies in particular to ice regimes “high-concentration” (Sect. 4.2) and “melt conditions” but also to the full set of SIC data pairs (denoted “all” in Fig. 12). The impact this difference in the comprehensiveness of the SIC products has on our evaluation results prevents us from making a ranking between the SIC products.
This paper is limited to clear-sky visible imagery. It is hence impossible to evaluate the performance of the SIC products under the full set of possible weather conditions influencing SIC retrieval, i.e., surface wind speed and atmospheric water vapor and cloud liquid water content. Our results likely cover a certain range of surface wind speeds and atmospheric water vapor contents which we, however, did not quantify, e.g., by means of atmospheric reanalysis data, to stay focused. Obviously, this would be an issue worth pursuing in a forthcoming study for which SIC estimates based on SAR data have to be used. These might allow us to assess PMW SIC quality also under higher loads of atmospheric water vapor content and, more importantly, clouds. Such a study could then focus in particular on an improved accuracy assessment of the PMW SIC in the marginal ice zone and along the ice edge. In such regions, our approach to derive Landsat SIC likely results in the highest positive biases – between a few percent to, in the worst case, 20 % for single PMW grid cells – due to mixed ocean–ice Landsat pixels classified as ice. Such a study would also be an excellent opportunity to evaluate the weather filters currently employed in the SIC products. In order to have a meaningful sample, such a study would require an equally extensive data set of SAR images interpreted into well-evaluated SIC estimates. This calls for continued development of reliable and consistent SIC estimates from SAR and thorough evaluation of SAR SIC products in both hemispheres.
Except SICCI-12km all sea-ice concentration products are publicly available under the following references: SICCI-25km (
The supplement related to this article is available online at:
SK wrote the manuscript. TL, LTP, and RTT contributed to the concept and work presented in the paper and also assisted in the writing. SK performed the data analysis together with LB, MM, and LZ. SK conducted the intercomparison with contributions in the interpretation of the results from TL, LTP, and RTT.
The contact author has declared that neither they nor their co-authors have any competing interests.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The publication contributes to the Cluster of Excellence “CLICCS – Climate, Climatic Change, and Society” and to the Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability (CEN) of the University of Hamburg. We are very grateful for the very helpful comments given by two anonymous reviewers and by the scientific editor Chris Derksen.
The work presented here was funded by EUMETSAT (through the 3rd Continuous Developments and Operation Phase of OSI SAF) and ESA (through the Climate Change Initiative Sea_Ice_cci project). The ESA Climate Change Initiative (CCI+) Sea Ice Phase 1 activity (contract no. 4000126449/19/I-NB) contributed to the article processing charges of this paper.
This paper was edited by Chris Derksen and reviewed by two anonymous referees.