<p>Satellite and airborne remote sensing provide complementary capabilities for the observation of the sea ice cover. However, due to the differences in footprint sizes and noise levels of the measurement techniques, as well as sea ice's variability across scales, it is challenging to carry out inter-comparison or consistency study of these observations. In this study we focus on the remote sensing of sea ice thickness parameters, and carry out: (1) the analysis of variability and its statistical scaling for typical parameters, and (2) the consistency study between airborne and satellite measurements. By using collocating data between Operation IceBridge and CryoSat-2 in the Arctic, we show that there exists consistency between the variability of radar freeboard estimations, although CryoSat-2 has higher noise levels. Specifically, we notice that the noise levels vary among different CryoSat-2 products, and for ESA CryoSat-2 freeboard product the noise levels are at about 14 and 20 cm for first-year and multiyear ice, respectively. On the other hand, for Operation IceBridge and ICESat, it is shown that the variability of snow (or total) freeboard is quantitatively comparable, despite over 5 years' the time difference between the two datasets. Furthermore, by using Operation IceBridge data, we also find wide-spread negative covariance between ice freeboard and snow depth, which only manifest at small spatial scales (40 m for first-year ice and about 80 to 120 m for MYI). This statistical relationship highlights that the snow cover reduces the overall topography of the ice cover. Besides, there is prevalent positive covariability between snow depth and snow freeboard across a wide range of spatial scales. The variability and consistency analysis calls for more process-oriented observations and modeling activities to elucidate key processes governing snow-ice interaction and sea ice variability on various spatial scales. The statistical results can also be utilized in improving both radar and laser altimetry, as well as the validation of sea ice and snow prognostic models.</p>