Sea ice in the Baltic Sea during 1993/94–2020/21 ice seasons from satellite observations and model reanalysis

Singh, Shakti; Maljutenko, Ilja; Uiboupin, Rivo

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-4741-2025

Articles | Volume 19, issue 10

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-4741-2025

© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-4741-2025

© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 19, issue 10

Research article

|

21 Oct 2025

Research article |

| 21 Oct 2025

Sea ice in the Baltic Sea during 1993/94–2020/21 ice seasons from satellite observations and model reanalysis

Shakti Singh, Ilja Maljutenko, and Rivo Uiboupin

Download

Final revised paper (published on 21 Oct 2025)
Preprint (discussion started on 08 Jul 2024)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-1701', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jul 2024

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1701/egusphere-2024-1701-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1701-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Shakti Singh, 17 Aug 2024
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1701/egusphere-2024-1701-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1701-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-1701', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Aug 2024

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1701/egusphere-2024-1701-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1701-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Shakti Singh, 17 Aug 2024
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1701/egusphere-2024-1701-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1701-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (21 Aug 2024) by John Yackel

AR by Shakti Singh on behalf of the Authors (14 Sep 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (13 Oct 2024) by John Yackel

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (24 Oct 2024)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (01 Nov 2024)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

It is very difficult to play with the manuscript when two reviewers have already published the reviews. I will keep decisions of the previous reviewers and will mark it as a major revision, however, I do not like this paper. And I also agree with most of the previous comments. There is one that needs to be changed – the reader is not interested in the software used – so the sentence with the explanation of the function 'R' should be removed.
Firstly, it sounds strange or it is a big issue that the reanalysis of sea ice included in the Copernicus database looks like it is wrong. I have no idea what should be fixed, but based on figure 6, the modeled sea ice thickness is excessively overestimated, which suggests problems in the circulation model or wrong parameterizations in the ice model – sea ice is created at the boundary between the ocean and air or between the ocean and sea ice. However, it should be described in the Copernicus database – somebody paid for those data and it has been accepted. To me, the data in the Copernicus database should be treated as a reference, and such dataset should not be accepted.
In my point of view the SAR and ice charts data set is the best.
The paper presents a simple analysis of the three datasets in the Copernicus database. There is nothing special about the paper except the numbers that could be used by other researchers.
I have only small comments:
The freezing and melting seasons depend on time but also on location, which means that the time depends on location, but in this work, it is divided only in time (DJF and MAM). I think it is a wrong approach and should be fixed.
The SD in the paper differs, and I feel there is a problem with the circulation model which is also visible in figure 6.

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (04 Nov 2024) by John Yackel

AR by Shakti Singh on behalf of the Authors (14 Dec 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (19 Dec 2024) by John Yackel

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (02 Jan 2025)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (13 Jan 2025)

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (16 Jan 2025) by John Yackel

AR by Shakti Singh on behalf of the Authors (21 Feb 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (14 Mar 2025) by John Yackel

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (24 Mar 2025)

RR by Anonymous Referee #4 (02 Jul 2025)

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (10 Jul 2025) by John Yackel

AR by Shakti Singh on behalf of the Authors (18 Aug 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (15 Sep 2025) by John Yackel

AR by Shakti Singh on behalf of the Authors (16 Sep 2025) Manuscript

Short summary

The sea ice statistics study highlights the bias in model estimations compared to satellite data and provides a simple approach to minimise that. During the study period, the model estimates sea ice forming slightly earlier but aligns well with the satellite data for ice season's end. Rapid decrease in the sea ice parameters is observed across the Baltic Sea, especially the ice thickness in the Bothnian Bay sub-basin. These statistics could be crucial for regional adaptation strategies.