In this paper, the performance of C-band synthetic aperture radar (SAR) Gaofen-3 (GF-3) quad-polarization Stripmap (QPS) data is assessed for classifying late spring and summer sea ice types. The investigation is based on 18 scenes of GF-3 QPS data acquired in the Arctic Ocean in 2017. In this study, floe ice (FI), brash ice (BI) between floes and open water (OW, ice-free area) were classified based on a mini sea ice residual convolutional network, which we call MSI-ResNet. While investigating the optimal patch size for MSI-ResNet, we found that, as the patch size continues to grow, the classification accuracy first increases and then decreases. A patch size of 31 × 31 was found to achieve the best performance. The performance of classification using different polarization combinations from the QPS data was also assessed. The vertical-vertical (VV) polarization input overestimates the FI category while incorrectly identifying most of the BI as FI. The VH polarization produces a synchronous improvement in FI, BI, and OW discrimination, with a higher overall accuracy and kappa coefficient (91.09% and 0.85, respectively) than the VV polarization (83.37% and 0.70, respectively). The combination of VV and vertical-horizontal (VH) polarizations presents a modest precision improvement for BI and OW together with a slight overestimation for FI. With VV, VH, and horizontal-horizontal (HH) polarization data as the inputs, the user’s accuracy improves to 95.12%, 93.42%, and 95.17% for FI, BI, and OW, respectively. The accuracy was assessed against visual interpretation of the sea ice classes in the images using a stratified sampling method. The application of the MSI-ResNet method to data covering the Beaufort Sea and the north of the Severnaya Zemlya archipelago was found to achieve a high overall accuracy (kappa) of 94.62% (±0.92) and 94.23% (±0.90), respectively. This is similar to the classification accuracy obtained in the Fram Strait. From the results of this study, it is shown that the MSI-ResNet method performs better than the classical support vector machine (SVM) classifier for sea ice discrimination. The GF-3 QPS mode data also show more details in discriminating scattered sea ice floes than the coincident Sentinel-1A Extra Wide (EW) swath mode data.

Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) of Greenland provide the basic data for studying the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS), but little research quantitatively evaluates and compares the accuracy of various Greenland DEMs. This study uses IceBridge elevation data to evaluate the accuracies of the the Greenland Ice Map Project (GIMP)1 DEM, GIMP2 DEM, TanDEM-X, and ArcticDEM in their corresponding time ranges. This study also analyzes the impact of DEM accuracy and resolution on the accuracy of river network extraction. The results show that (1) within the time range covered by each DEM, TanDEM-X with an RMSE of 5.60 m has higher accuracy than the other DEMs in terms of absolute height accuracy, while GIMP1 has the lowest accuracy among the four Greenland DEMs, with an RMSE of 14.34 m. (2) Greenland DEMs are affected by regional errors and interannual changes. The accuracy in areas with elevations above 2000 m is higher than that in areas with elevations below 2000 m, and better accuracy is observed in the north than in the south. The stability of the ArcticDEM product is higher than those of the other three DEM products, and its RMSE standard deviation over multiple years is only 0.14 m. Therefore, the errors caused by the applications of DEMs with longer time spans are smaller. GIMP1 performs in an opposite manner, with a standard deviation of 2.39 m. (3) The river network extracted from TanDEM-X is close to the real river network digitized from remote sensing images, with an accuracy of 50.78%. The river network extracted from GIMP1 exhibits the largest errors, with an accuracy of only 8.83%. This study calculates and compares the accuracy of four Greenland DEMs and indicates that TanDEM-X has the highest accuracy, adding quantitative studies on the accuracy evaluation of various Greenland DEMs. This study also compares the results of different DEM river network extractions, verifies the impact of DEM accuracy on the accuracy of the river network extraction results, and provides an explorable direction for the hydrological analysis of Greenland as a whole.