Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:33:07.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of sea ice classification methods based on satellite scatterometer and radiometer data in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2019

Xiaoping Pang ,
Xiang Gao  and
Qing Ji
Xiaoping Pang
Affiliation:
Chinese Antarctic Center of Surveying and Mapping, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China Key Laboratory of Polar Surveying and Mapping, National Administration of Surveying, Mapping and Geoinformation, Wuhan 430079, China
Xiang Gao
Affiliation:
Chinese Antarctic Center of Surveying and Mapping, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China
Qing Ji*
Affiliation:
Chinese Antarctic Center of Surveying and Mapping, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China Key Laboratory of Polar Surveying and Mapping, National Administration of Surveying, Mapping and Geoinformation, Wuhan 430079, China
*
*Corresponding author: jiqing@whu.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Information on sea ice type is an important factor for deriving sea ice parameters from satellite remote sensing data, such as sea ice concentration, extent and thickness. In this study, sea ice in the Weddell Sea was classified by the histogram threshold (HT) method, the Spreen model (SM) method from satellite scatterometer data and the strong contrast (SC) method from radiometer data, and this information was compared with Antarctic Sea Ice Processes and Climate (ASPeCt) sea ice-type ship-based observations. The results show that all three methods can distinguish the multi-year (MY) ice and first-year (FY) ice using Ku-band scatterometer data and radiometer data during the ice growth season, while C-band scatterometer data are not suitable for MY ice and FY ice discrimination using HT and SM methods. The SM model has a smaller MY ice classification extent than the HT method from scatterometer data. The classification accuracy of the SM method is the higher compared to ship-based observations. It can be concluded that the SM method is a promising method for discriminating MY ice from FY ice. These results provide a reference for further retrieval of long-term sea ice-type information for the whole of Antarctica.

Keywords

ASPeCthistogram thresholdsea ice type
Type
Physical Sciences
Information
Antarctic Science , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , June 2019 , pp. 150 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © Antarctic Science Ltd 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ACIA 2005. Arctic impact climate assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1042 pp.Google Scholar
Bhowmick, S.A., Kumar, R. & Kumar, A.S.K. 2014. Cross calibration of the OceanSAT-2 scatterometer with QuikSCAT scatterometer using natural terrestrial targets. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 52, 3393–3398.Google Scholar
Cavalieri, D.J., Markus, T. & Comiso, J.C. 2014. AMSR-E/Aqua daily L3 12.5 km brightness temperature, sea ice concentration, and snow depth polar grids, version 3. Boulder, CO: NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5067/AMSR-E/AE_SI12.003.Google Scholar
Comiso, J.C. & Nishio, F. 2008. Trends in the sea ice cover using enhanced and compatible AMSR-E, SSM/I, and SMMR data. Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans, 113, 228–236.Google Scholar
Early, D.S. & Long, D.G. 2001. Image reconstruction and enhanced resolution imaging from irregular samples. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience & Remote Sensing, 39, 291–302.Google Scholar
Ezraty, R. & Cavanié, A. 1999. Intercomparison of backscatter maps over Arctic sea ice from NSCAT and the ERS scatterometer. Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans, 104, 11471–11483.Google Scholar
Geldsetzer, T. & Yackel, J.J. 2009. Sea ice type and open water discrimination using dual co-polarized C-band SAR. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 35, 73–84.Google Scholar
Gloersen, P. & Cavalieri, D.J. 1986. Reduction of weather effects in the calculation of sea ice concentration from microwave radiances. Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans, 91, 3913–3919.Google Scholar
Haarpaintner, J., Tonboe, R.T., Long, D.G. & Van Woert, M.L. 2004. Automatic detection and validity of the sea-ice edge: an application of enhanced-resolution QuikScat/SeaWinds data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 42, 1433–1443.Google Scholar
Haarpaintner, J. & Spreen, G. 2007. Use of enhanced-resolution QuikSCAT/SeaWinds data for operational ice services and climate research: sea ice edge, type, concentration, and drift. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 45, 3131–3137.Google Scholar
Haas, C. 2001. The seasonal cycle of ERS scatterometer signatures over perennial Antarctic sea ice and associated surface ice properties and processes. Annals of Glaciology, 33, 69–73.Google Scholar
Hao, G. & Su, J. 2015. A study of multiyear ice concentration retrieval algorithms using AMSR-E data. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 34, 102–109.Google Scholar
Hellmer, H.H., Christian, H., Dieckmann, G.S. & Michael, S. 2006. Sea ice feedbacks observed in western Weddell Sea. Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union, 87, 173–179.Google Scholar
Hunke, E.C. & Ackley, S.F. 2001. A numerical investigation of the 1997–1998 Ronne Polynya. Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans, 106, 22373–22382.Google Scholar
Imaoka, K., Maeda, T., Kachi, M., Kasahara, M., Ito, N. & Nakagawa, K. 2012. Status of AMSR2 instrument on GCOM-W1. SPIE Asia-Pacific Remote Sensing, 10.1117/12.977774.Google Scholar
Jeffries, M.O., Krouse, H.R., Hurstcushing, B. & Maksym, T. 2001. Snow-ice accretion and snow-cover depletion on Antarctic first-year sea-ice floes. Annals of Glaciology, 33, 51–60.Google Scholar
Kawanishi, T., Sezai, T., Ito, Y. & Imaoka, K. 2003. The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Earth Observing System (AMSR-E), NASDA's contribution to the EOS for global energy and water cycle studies. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 41, 184–194.Google Scholar
Kwok, R. 1998. The RADARSAT geophysical processor system. In Tsatsoulis, C. & Kwok, R., eds. Analysis of SAR data of the polar oceans. Berlin: Springer, pp. 235–257.Google Scholar
Kwok, R., Cunningham, G.F. & Yueh, S. 1999. Area balance of the Arctic Ocean perennial ice zone: October 1996 to April 1997. Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans, 104, 25747–25759.Google Scholar
Kwok, R. 2004. Annual cycles of multiyear sea ice coverage of the Arctic Ocean: 1999–2003. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, 109, 227–251.Google Scholar
Long, D.G., Hardin, P.J. & Whiting, P.T. 1993. Resolution enhancement of spaceborne scatterometer data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 31, 700–715.Google Scholar
Maslanik, J., Stroeve, J., Fowler, C. & Emery, W. 2011. Distribution and trends in Arctic sea ice age through spring 2011. Geophysical Research Letters, 38, 10.1029/2011GL047735.Google Scholar
Mortin, J., Howell, S.E.L., Wang, L., Derksen, C., Svensson, G., Graversen, R.G. & Schrøder, T.M. 2014. Extending the QuikSCAT record of seasonal melt–freeze transitions over Arctic sea ice using ASCAT. Remote Sensing of Environment, 141, 214–230.Google Scholar
NASA/JPL 2006. QuikSCAT science data product – user's manual. Retrieved from https://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds744.2/docs/QSUG_v3.pdf.Google Scholar
Nghiem, S.V., Chao, Y., Neumann, G., Li, P., Perovich, D.K., Street, T. & Clemente-Colón, P. 2006. Depletion of perennial sea ice in the East Arctic Ocean. Geophysical Research Letters, 331, 10.1029/2006GL027198.Google Scholar
Parkinson, C. & Cavalieri, D. 2012. Antarctic sea ice variability and trends, 1979–2010. The Cryosphere, 6, 871–880.Google Scholar
Rivas, M.B., Verspeek, J., Verhoef, A. & Stoffelen, A. 2012. Bayesian sea ice detection with the advanced scatterometer ASCAT. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 50, 2649–2657.Google Scholar
Schwegmann, S. 2013. Sea ice conditions during POLARSTERN cruise ANT-XXIX/6 (AWECS). Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Center for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Center for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven PANGAEA. Retrieved from https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.819540.Google Scholar
Serreze, M.C. & Stroeve, J. 2015. Arctic sea ice trends, variability and implications for seasonal ice forecasting. Philosophical Transactions, 373, 327–336.Google Scholar
Shokr, M.E. 1998. Field observations and model calculations of dielectric properties of Arctic sea ice in the microwave C-band. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 36, 463–478.Google Scholar
Spreen, G. 2008. Satellite-based estimates of sea-ice volume flux through Fram Strait. Hamburg: Hamburg University Press.Google Scholar
Spreen, G., Kaleschke, L. & Heygster, G. 2008. Sea ice remote sensing using AMSR-E 89-GHz channels. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, 113, 447–453.Google Scholar
Thorndike, A.S., Rothrock, D.A., Maykut, G.A. & Colony, R. 1975. The thickness distribution of sea ice. Journal of Geophysical Research, 80, 4501–4513.Google Scholar
Tucker, W., Grenfell, T., Onstott, R., Perovich, D., Gow, A., Snuchman, R. & Sutherland, L. 1991. Microwave and physical properties of sea ice in the winter marginal ice zone. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 96, 4573–4587.Google Scholar
Turner, J., Hosking, J.S., Bracegirdle, T.J., Marshall, G.J. & Phillips, T. 2015. Recent changes in Antarctic sea ice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 373, 20140163.Google Scholar
Walker, N.P., Partington, K.C., Van Woert, M.L. & Street, T.L.T. 2006. Arctic sea ice type and concentration mapping using passive and active microwave sensors. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 44, 3574–3584.Google Scholar
Walsh, J.E. 1983. The role of sea ice in climatic variability: theories and evidence. Atmosphere-Ocean, 21, 229–242.Google Scholar
Worby, A.P. & Comiso, J.C. 2004. Studies of the Antarctic sea ice edge and ice extent from satellite and ship observations. Remote Sensing of Environment, 92, 98–111.Google Scholar
Worby, A.P., Geiger, C.A., Paget, M.J., Van Woert, M.L., Ackley, S.F. & Deliberty, T.L. 2008. Thickness distribution of Antarctic sea ice. Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans, 113, 1202–1215.Google Scholar
Zakhvatkina, N.Y., Alexandrov, V.Y., Johannessen, O.M. & Sandven, S. 2013. Classification of sea ice types in ENVISAT synthetic aperture radar images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 51, 2587–2600.Google Scholar
Zhang, S., Guo, F., Zhang, J., Liu, L. & Bai, X. 2016. Use of contrast ratio to detect multi-year ice using AMSR-E passive microwave data. Chinese Journal of Polar Research, 28, 95–102.Google Scholar
Zwally, H.J., Comiso, J.C., Parkinson, C.L., Cavalieri, D.J. & Gloersen, P. 2002. Variability of Antarctic sea ice 1979–1998. Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans, 107, 10.1029/2000JC000733.Google Scholar