...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing >Comparing Coincident Elevation and Freeboard From IceBridge and Five Different CryoSat-2 Retrackers
【24h】

Comparing Coincident Elevation and Freeboard From IceBridge and Five Different CryoSat-2 Retrackers

机译：比较IceBridge和五个不同的CryoSat-2追踪器的重合高程和干舷

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The airborne Operation IceBridge and spaceborne CryoSat-2 missions observe polar sea ice at different spatial and temporal scales as well as with different sensor suites. Comparison of data products from IceBridge and CryoSat-2 is complicated by the fact that they use different geophysical corrections: reference ellipsoid, geoid model, tide model, and atmospheric corrections to derive surface elevation and sea-ice freeboard. In this paper, we compare sea-ice surface elevation and freeboard using eight coincident CryoSat-2, Airborne Topographic Mapper (ATM), and Land, Vegetation, and Ice Sensor (LVIS) observations with direct IceBridge underflights of CryoSat-2 ground tracks. We apply identical geophysical corrections to CryoSat-2 and IceBridge data to eliminate elevation biases due to these differences and focus on differences due to retracker performance. The IceBridge ATM and LVIS elevation and freeboard and Snow Radar snow depth data sets are averaged to each CryoSat-2 footprint for comparison. With snow depth measurements, we are able to compare elevations and freeboards at the snow/ice interface for five different CryoSat-2 retrackers (ESA, GSFCv1, AWI, JPL, and GSFCv2) and IceBridge. The overall mean of freeboard differences between GSFCv2, ESA, AWI, JPL retrackers, and ATM are in agreement within 0.05 m. However, the five different CryoSat-2 retrackers show distinct differences in mean elevation over leads and over floes. This suggests that the physical interpretation of the different retrackers needs to be considered depending on usage, for example, elevations from CryoSat-2 retrackers need to be carefully calibrated before comparing with elevation from other satellites for long-term surface elevation trends.
机译：空中的IceBridge行动和CryoSat-2太空飞行任务在不同的时空范围以及不同的传感器套件中观测极地海冰。由于IceBridge和CryoSat-2的数据产品使用不同的地球物理校正：参考椭球，大地水准面模型，潮汐模型和大气校正以得出表面高程和海冰干舷，因此比较它们的过程变得复杂。在本文中，我们使用八个同时出现的CryoSat-2，机载地形图测绘仪（ATM）和陆地，植被和冰雪传感器（LVIS）观测值与IceBridge直接飞行的CryoSat-2地面航迹比较了海冰表面高度和干舷。我们对CryoSat-2和IceBridge数据进行了相同的地球物理校正，以消除由于这些差异而引起的仰角偏差，并着眼于由于跟踪仪性能而引起的差异。将IceBridge ATM和LVIS海拔高度以及干舷和Snow Radar雪深数据集平均到每个CryoSat-2足迹以进行比较。通过雪深测量，我们能够比较五个不同的CryoSat-2追踪器（ESA，GSFCv1，AWI，JPL和GSFCv2）和IceBridge在雪/冰界面上的海拔和干舷。 GSFCv2，ESA，AWI，JPL追踪器和ATM之间的干舷差异的总体平均值在0.05 m之内一致。但是，五种不同的CryoSat-2追踪器显示出铅和絮凝物的平均高度存在明显差异。这表明需要根据使用情况考虑不同跟踪器的物理解释，例如，在与其他卫星的仰角进行长期地表仰角趋势比较之前，需要仔细校准CryoSat-2跟踪器的仰角。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号