Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5997
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5997
20 Oct 2026
 | 20 Oct 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for The Cryosphere (TC).

Assessment of year-round snow depth on Arctic sea ice

Anne Braakmann Folgmann, Jack C. Landy, Stefan Hendricks, Clara Vydra, Robert Ricker, and Alessandro Di Bella

Abstract. Snow on sea ice is an essential climate variable due to its high albedo and insulating capability. In addition, snow thickness estimates are needed to calculate sea ice freeboard and thickness (SIT) from radar altimetry measurements and uncertainties in snow depth contribute significantly to the resulting SIT uncertainty. In recent years, progress has been made observing or estimating winter snow depth. However, very few snow depth products exist year-round, i.e. including the summer melt season, despite considerable snow remaining on the ice in early summer. This study is the first to assess snow depth estimates year-round with a focus on the so far unexplored melt season. We intercompare estimates (a) based on in situ data from the Warren climatology and (b) two modified Warren climatologies using either ice age data or ice charts, (c) modeled snow depth from SnowModel-LG using two different forcings, (d) a climatology of SnowModel-LG, (e) a combination of the modified Warren climatology and the SnowModel-LG climatology, and (f) finally we also, for the first time, explore the use of dual-frequency altimetry (KuLa) to derive snow depth estimates year-round. We compare the snow depth products against buoy observations of snow depth and airborne measurements of SIT, as well as mooring measurements of sea ice draft together with CryoSat-2 freeboard data. We find that the MERRA-2 forced version of SnowModel-LG agrees better with validation data during the melt season, because the ERA-5 forced version melts the snow much faster than any other product. When a Warren climatology is used, we recommend using the modified version and to strictly only use it in the Central Arctic, where it is constrained by measurements. For KuLa we find that realistic results extend into summer. However, some regions retain snow throughout summer, which likely indicates residual negative biases in CryoSat-2 freeboards and/or positive biases in the ICESat-2 freeboard data.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Anne Braakmann Folgmann, Jack C. Landy, Stefan Hendricks, Clara Vydra, Robert Ricker, and Alessandro Di Bella

Status: open (until 01 Dec 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Anne Braakmann Folgmann, Jack C. Landy, Stefan Hendricks, Clara Vydra, Robert Ricker, and Alessandro Di Bella
Anne Braakmann Folgmann, Jack C. Landy, Stefan Hendricks, Clara Vydra, Robert Ricker, and Alessandro Di Bella
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 20 Oct 2026
Download
Short summary
This study is the first to assess snow depth on Arctic sea ice year-round, i.e. including the more challenging summer melt season, which is the key season for marine operations and biological production. Our study shows that considerable snow remains in summer (May–Sep). A first test of altimetry-derived snow estimates year-round yields promising results, but higher snow north of Greenland could point at biases in the input altimetry data.
Share