Science random: a flooded snowpit on Arctic sea ice.

What's going on here? On drifting pack ice, a snow load can depress the ice surface below sea level and it floods. Here, there's a chunk of ice tilted down so it slopes to below sea level as the snow load thickens - it is a wind deposit behind a small ridge (also places were ice is jumbled up).

It's the same procedure and logging as an avalanche study pit, although always did a density and salinity profile as well.

1/

...why did we do this?

Snowpits like these - specifically flooded snow pits - are super important for interpretation of radar remote sensing estimates of sea ice altimetry. Radar will generally reflect off the water layer here, not the ice - and potentially a salty snow layer some height above the water as salty water is wicked up through the snow.

...and there are vastly too few of these observations in the world.

2/

Here's a different end of the snow scale - the world's tiniest snowpit??

We did both ends of the scale. I've dug 1.5- 1.8m deep pits on flat ice. And these...

(if you've come for the hashtags to this one, read up thread for context πŸ‘† πŸ™. Also favourites are great - boosts are better. As usual this is a "spruiking for an income" thread. Thanks!)

❄️ ❀️

/end
#snowscience #remotesensing #seaice #arctic

ps: here's a paper which talks about some snow on sea ice things in more detail. I got involved as a reviewer, helped tidy up a bunch of stuff, re did a lot of analysis and tightened the spatial components right up, and a good number of the plots are my fault now 🀣. I appreciated the offer to join as an author, it's exactly what I would do (have done) for reviewers who have added to the work!

https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/15/2819/2021/

Implications of surface flooding on airborne estimates of snow depth on sea ice

Abstract. Snow depth observations from airborne snow radars, such as the NASA's Operation IceBridge (OIB) mission, have recently been used in altimeter-derived sea ice thickness estimates, as well as for model parameterization. A number of validation studies comparing airborne and in situ snow depth measurements have been conducted in the western Arctic Ocean, demonstrating the utility of the airborne data. However, there have been no validation studies in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic. Recent observations in this region suggest a significant and predominant shift towards a snow-ice regime caused by deep snow on thin sea ice. During the Norwegian young sea Ice, Climate and Ecosystems (ICE) expedition (N-ICE2015) in the area north of Svalbard, a validation study was conducted on 19 March 2015. This study collected ground truth data during an OIB overflight. Snow and ice thickness measurements were obtained across a two-dimensional (2-D) 400 m × 60 m grid. Additional snow and ice thickness measurements collected in situ from adjacent ice floes helped to place the measurements obtained at the gridded survey field site into a more regional context. Widespread negative freeboards and flooding of the snowpack were observed during the N-ICE2015 expedition due to the general situation of thick snow on relatively thin sea ice. These conditions caused brine wicking into and saturation of the basal snow layers. This causes the airborne radar signal to undergo more diffuse scattering, resulting in the location of the radar main scattering horizon being detected well above the snow–ice interface. This leads to a subsequent underestimation of snow depth; if only radar-based information is used, the average airborne snow depth was 0.16 m thinner than that measured in situ at the 2-D survey field. Regional data within 10 km of the 2-D survey field suggested however a smaller deviation between average airborne and in situ snow depth, a 0.06 m underestimate in snow depth by the airborne radar, which is close to the resolution limit of the OIB snow radar system. Our results also show a broad snow depth distribution, indicating a large spatial variability in snow across the region. Differences between the airborne snow radar and in situ measurements fell within the standard deviation of the in situ data (0.15–0.18 m). Our results suggest that seawater flooding of the snow–ice interface leads to underestimations of snow depth or overestimations of sea ice freeboard measured from radar altimetry, in turn impacting the accuracy of sea ice thickness estimates.

pps: here's a notebook with some cool stuff. It is also *sigh* a good place to go when I look at other researcher's code and think "well it would be great if this was more complete"

🀣 😭

yknow, point one finger and four point back and all that...

https://gitlab.com/npolar/oceanseaice/roesel-cryosphere-2020/-/blob/main/roesel-etal-2020-workingcode.ipynb?ref_type=heads

roesel-etal-2020-workingcode.ipynb Β· main Β· Norwegian Polar Institute / oceanseaice / roesel-cryosphere-2020 Β· GitLab

Code supporting the publication 'Implications of surface flooding on airborne thickness measurements of snow on sea ice' (https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2020-168)

GitLab