the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 10 Feb 2026
Review article: Advances in Polar Environmental Monitoring with ICESat-2: From Ice Sheet Mass Balance to Sea Ice Thickness Retrieval
Abstract. ICESat-2's advanced topographic laser altimeter system provides unprecedented technical support for polar environmental research including ice sheet mass balance detection and multi-dimensional sea ice parameter retrieval. However, the satellite's technical innovations and application advantages for polar environments still lack systematic elaboration, its high-precision data have not been effectively integrated from single-factor analysis to multi-process collaborative cognition, and the main sources of uncertainty as well as future technical breakthrough paths also remain unclear. To address these gaps, this review explores three core scientific questions. First, how to accurately solve the inversion challenges of key parameters through ICESat-2's technical innovations. Second, how to apply its high-precision inversion results to deepen the understanding of multi-sphere and multi-element interaction processes in polar regions and further reveal their systematic change laws. Third, what are the main uncertainties in ICESat-2's polar monitoring applications and what targeted technical paths can achieve breakthroughs. By systematically organizing relevant research progress, this review clarifies the inherent connection between technical innovations and polar parameter inversion, and ultimately provides solid support for the construction of cross-element integrated scientific cognition of polar environments.
- Preprint
(2403 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 11 Apr 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-288', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Mar 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 187 | 117 | 16 | 320 | 38 | 51 |
- HTML: 187
- PDF: 117
- XML: 16
- Total: 320
- BibTeX: 38
- EndNote: 51
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
I was unable to complete a full review of this manuscript. After reading only the abstract and the first two sections, I encountered such a density of factual errors, incorrect citations, internal contradictions, and technically incoherent statements that continuing a detailed line-by-line review was not a productive use of time. The nature and pattern of these errors, including duplicate references, systematic citation misattribution, and passages that read as technically plausible but scientifically meaningless raise serious concerns about whether this manuscript was substantially generated using AI without adequate expert oversight or verification. I outline the most significant problems below. I do not recommend publication of this manuscript.
Abstract
The abstract is composed largely of generic, high-level language that does not connect to specific scientific ideas, findings, or gaps. Phrases such as "multi-process collaborative cognition," "cross-element integrated scientific cognition," and "holistic scientific cognition of the systematic change laws of the polar environment" are stylistically characteristic of AI-generated text and carry little scientific meaning. The abstract does not clearly communicate what new synthesis this review provides that does not already exist in the literature.
Furthermore, the abstract and introduction both imply that no systematic review of ICESat-2's polar monitoring capabilities exists. Notably, the paper fails to cite Magruder et al. (2025, Earth and Space Science, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EA004221), which provides exactly such a systematic assessment of ICESat-2 from the perspective of mission science requirements. This omission is particularly telling given that this paper purports to fill a gap that has already been addressed in the peer-reviewed literature.
Section 1
Incorrect satellite name. The paper repeatedly refers to "ICESat-1." The correct mission name is ICESat. There is no "ICESat-1."Â
There are numerous areas of citation errors throughout of which I noted some below:
The paper states: "ICESat-1's single-beam observation design struggled to effectively distinguish slope effects from true elevation changes, leading to large errors in ice sheet mass balance inversion (Neuenschwander et al., 2008; Urban et al., 2005)."
Neither of these references supports this claim. Neuenschwander et al. (2008) is a study of ICESat/GLAS waveforms over terrestrial ecosystems and vegetation mapping. Urban et al. (2005) concerns ICESat sea level comparisons in coastal and ocean contexts. Neither paper addresses ice sheet mass balance or slope effects. Citing these papers in this context is either careless or indicative of AI hallucination of citations.
The paper states: "CryoSat-2's radar signals are susceptible to snow penetration, significantly restricting the accuracy of sea ice thickness retrieval (Howat et al., 2008; Kwok et al., 2009)."
Howat et al. (2008) concerns rates of southeast Greenland ice volume loss from combined ICESat and ASTER observations, it has no connection whatsoever to CryoSat-2 radar penetration. This is again a citation hallucination. Similarly, Kwok et al. (2009) concerns Arctic sea ice thinning and volume loss from ICESat, not CryoSat-2 radar penetration (noting also that CryoSat-2 was not launched until after this paper was published).
The paper states: "ICESat-2 has also demonstrated significant value in ecological fields such as large-scale biomass estimation and global carbon stock assessment (Lefsky et al., 2005; Neumann et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2024; Zhu et al., 2020)."
Lefsky et al. (2005) is an ICESat study (not ICESat-2). The Neumann et al. (2019) reference cited here is the ICESat-2 mission overview paper describing the global geolocated photon product, it is not a study of biomass estimation or carbon stock assessment. This is another example of a plausible-sounding citation that does not match the claim being made.
Another citation misuse for Urban et al. (2008) for mountain glaciers and polar ice sheets.
Urban et al. (2008) is a survey of ICESat coastal altimetry applications focused on continental coasts, open ocean islands, and inland rivers and not mountain glaciers or polar ice sheets as implied.
The paragraph introducing Section 2 reads as a series of loosely connected high-level statements that do not build a coherent scientific argument. The stated logic, that ATLAS's technical innovations, data product system, and polar adaptive design together enable improved polar parameter retrieval, is presented as self-evident rather than demonstrated. This type of paragraph structure, asserting conclusions without substantive support, is characteristic of AI-generated text without providing intellectual content.
Section 2
The text (Line 118) states a "0.7-meter along-track sampling interval and 11-meter laser footprint diameter." However, Figure 1 in the same paper lists the ICESat-2 footprint diameter as 17 m, which is inconsistent with later published ICESat-2 mission documentation for an 11 meter diameter footprint.
The paper cites Howat et al. (2008) in support of the claim that ICESat-2 addressed the limitations of ICESat's single-beam design through its six-beam ATLAS configuration. As noted above, Howat et al. (2008) is entirely unrelated to ICESat-2's design.
The paper states: "high-energy strong beams meet the signal capture needs of low-reflectivity regions, while low-energy weak beams effectively avoid signal saturation in high-reflectivity regions."
This is a fundamental mischaracterization of the ATLAS beam design. The strong and weak beam pair design is not principally about avoiding signal saturation in high-reflectivity regions. The primary purpose of the beam pair configuration is to enable surface slope determination across the cross-track direction and is a characteristic of the beam splitting optics. Signal saturation in photon-counting systems operates on very different principles than in traditional full-waveform lidars, and this sentence fundamentally misrepresents both the design rationale and the physics of photon-counting detection.
The measurement accuracy values presented in Figure 1 (e.g., "2.3 cm measurement accuracy") are presented without qualification or context. ICESat-2's measurement accuracy is highly surface-dependent, affected by surface slope, reflectivity, photon return rates, cloud conditions, incidence angle, and many other factors. Presenting a single unqualified accuracy figure is misleading and technically incorrect.
The paper cites Kwok et al. (2020a) and Xie et al. (2023) in the context of ATL03 data product description. Kwok et al. (2020a) concerns Arctic snow depth and sea ice thickness from ICESat-2 and CryoSat-2 freeboards, it is not a description of ATL03 processing. Neither paper is an appropriate reference for the ATL03 product development or algorithm description, for which the correct citation is the ATBD (Neumann et al., 2022) or the mission overview paper.
The paragraph describing ATL03 preprocessing contains multiple errors. The claim that "subsurface scattering correction" is a step in ATL03 processing to optimize elevation accuracy is incorrect as described. Subsurface scattering effects are relevant to specific surface types but the description given mischaracterizes the ATL03 algorithm. The framing of ATL03 as producing "clean and precise surface elevation data" also misrepresents ATL03, which is a global geolocated photon cloud that includes noise photons.
The description of ATL07 processing omits critical elements and contains inaccuracies. This section is also riddled with errors, many which don’t acknowledge the new processing steps taken in the rel007 data, and others that completely miss the subtlety and complexity of the data products. The cited references (Kwok et al., 2019; Kwok et al., 2020b) are appropriate for early product descriptions but the manuscript does not acknowledge that the product has been substantially revised since then.
The ATL10 description similarly contains errors. The "approximately 10-kilometer neighborhood window" description mischaracterizes the segment construction methodology. The claim that the product provides "a freeboard histogram constructed from full-beam data" is an inaccurate description of what ATL10 actually contains and how data is used in that product.
The paragraph on surface reflectivity heterogeneity (Section 2.3) misrepresents the ATLAS adaptive beam design. The values stated for lead reflectivity (0.1–0.2) and sea ice reflectivity (0.7–0.8), while broadly correct, are presented without the significant nuance required. The claim that "high-density multi-beam distribution ensures complete coverage of heterogeneous surfaces without observational blind spots" is simply not accurate.
The description of how ICESat-2 mitigates solar background noise contains inaccuracies. The statement that "ICESat-2 mitigates this by scheduling core polar observations during twilight or nighttime" completely misrepresents how ICESat-2 operates. It does not selectively schedule observations by solar angle. The description of the signal screening algorithm's behavior under different solar angle conditions does not accurately reflect how the algorithm works.
References 54 and 61 (Kwok et al., 2021 and Kwok et al., 2021b) are identical papers, citing the same journal, volume, page range, and DOI. Similarly, References 91 and 92 (Petty et al., 2023 and Petty et al., 2023b) are word-for-word identical, citing the same paper twice. The presence of duplicate references with artificial "a/b" suffixes is a well-documented artifact of AI-generated reference lists.
Overall, the density and nature of the errors documented above are numerous: citation hallucinations, internal contradictions, technically incorrect statements about a well-documented instrument, duplicate references, and prose that mimics the structure of scientific writing without demonstrating domain expertise, etc. This article does not reflect a deep knowledge or review of ICESat-2 data. I strongly recommend rejection. The manuscript requires fundamental reconstruction by authors who have direct expertise with the ICESat-2 instrument, data products, and cryospheric applications.Â
Â