English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

. In this study, we compare eight recently developed snow depth products over Arctic sea ice, whichuse satellite observations, modeling, or a combination of satellite and modeling approaches. Theseproducts are further compared against various ground-truth observations, including those from icemass balance observations and airborne measurements. Large mean snow depth discrepancies areobserved over the Atlantic and Canadian Arctic sectors. The differences between climatology andthe snow products early in winter could be in part a result of the delaying in Arctic iceformation that reduces early snow accumulation, leading to shallower snowpacks at the start ofthe freeze-up season. These differences persist through spring despite overall more winter snowaccumulation in the reanalysis-based products than in the climatologies. Among the productsevaluated, the University of Washington (UW) snow depth product produces the deepest spring(March–April) snowpacks, while the snow product from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI)provides the shallowest spring snow depths. Most snow products show significant correlation withsnow depths retrieved from Operational IceBridge (OIB) while correlations are quite low againstbuoy measurements, with no correlation and very low variability from University of Bremen and DMIproducts. Inconsistencies in reconstructed snow depth among the products, as well as differencesbetween these products and in situ and airborne observations, can be partially attributed todifferences in effective footprint and spatial–temporal coverage, as well as insufficientobservations for validation/bias adjustments. Our results highlight the need for more targetedArctic surveys over different spatial and temporal scales to allow for a more systematiccomparison and fusion of airborne, in situ and remote sensing observations.

Inter-comparison of snow depth over Arctic sea ice from reanalysis reconstructions and satellite retrieval