puso E Figure 5 
" 5 vv Polarization Comparison 
— HH of Ku-Band Radar Cross 
Sections. Results 
shown here are taken 
from Onstott et al. (1979) 
and demonstrate the 
similarity of VV and HH 
data for these important 
ice classes. A slight 
advantage appears to 
5 exist in the absolute 
= Multi-Year level with a choice of 
VV polarization. Ice 
surface temperatures 
\ Thick in this data set were 
First-Year between - 2 and -8°C. 
    
    
    
(dB) (I3GHz) 
  
c 
  
^ -25 | | L 
0° 1 1) 207 "40e * "ege 
Incidence Angle (9) 
157 HV Figure 6 
Polarization Comparison 
; of Ku-band Radar Contrast. 
Results are from two 
different scatterometers. 
HH In addition ice conditions 
were also different: the 
SS VH CCRS data were taken with 
air temperature near -30°C 
and the other data as 
  
the LHS. It 
jt does not 
npanying | 
nich do not 
S 
I 
/ 
——————— VV indicated in Figure 5. 
Á Except for the VH curve, 
contrast appears to be 
CCRS ; smaller near nadir but 
/ —-— —- Onstott et al. 1979 Plate at 2 2, 
oO 
i 
v 
  
  
OY = Ory (dB) (I3GHz) 
  
  
  
  
  
D L l l 
o? 20° 40° 60° 
Incidence Angle (0) 
eo^ Figure 7 : 
NL=6 Model Classification 
Based on Mean Radar 
Contrast, Scene Texture 
and Rayleigh Fading. 
% misclassification 
is plotted as a function 
of radar contrast between 
two ice classes with the 
amount of speckle averaging 
(number of looks) represent- 
ed as parameter NL. 
Classes had a prior proba- 
bilities of occurrence of 
s of X/L O | 0.8 and 0.2 and real widths 
be reduced O 5 : 10 | m 15 (many look limit) of 2.5 and 
| to noise. 1.0 dB respectively. 
Contrast (dB) 
40[- 
NL=20 
201 
  
Misclassification Error % 
  
  
799