The Cryosphere
The Cryosphere
TC
Articles | Volume 16, issue 10
Articles | Volume 16, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4473-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Special issue:
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-4473-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 16, issue 10
Research article
 | 
21 Oct 2022
Research article |  | 21 Oct 2022

A comparison between Envisat and ICESat sea ice thickness in the Southern Ocean

Jinfei Wang, Chao Min, Robert Ricker, Qian Shi, Bo Han, Stefan Hendricks, Renhao Wu, and Qinghua Yang

Viewed

Total article views: 3,515 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
2,497 926 92 3,515 109 99 135
  • HTML: 2,497
  • PDF: 926
  • XML: 92
  • Total: 3,515
  • Supplement: 109
  • BibTeX: 99
  • EndNote: 135
Views and downloads (calculated since 03 Aug 2021)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 03 Aug 2021)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 3,515 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 3,361 with geography defined and 154 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 28 Oct 2025
Download
Short summary
The differences between Envisat and ICESat sea ice thickness (SIT) reveal significant temporal and spatial variations. Our findings suggest that both overestimation of Envisat sea ice freeboard, potentially caused by radar backscatter originating from inside the snow layer, and the AMSR-E snow depth biases and sea ice density uncertainties can possibly account for the differences between Envisat and ICESat SIT.
Read more
Share
Special issue
The Weddell Sea and the ocean off Dronning Maud Land: unique...