Unfortunately, there is no way to do this effectively from a satellite. Aircraft data is expensive and slow to collect, and limited in extent, and the ice changes faster than you can schedule flights over it; this is why it has to be interpolated and extrapolated into the ice-thickness models to come up with a meaningful estimate of overall ice thickness. It is second-order data, useful, but not as dependable and reliable as other sensors on other platforms.

Only the ice extent sensors (IR radiometers)give you a real time look at the ice cover, day and night, even through clouds. And they can cover the entire pole in just one 24 hour set of passes. The other data has to be assembled and interpreted, which the denialists use as an excuse to dismiss it altogether. As for the area and ice extent info (which also has its drawbacks, like it has to be calibrated with ground truth measurements in situ) well, they just ignore that. They simply don't want to believe any of it, or (more likely) they believe it but don't want anyone else to believe it. They are partisan propagandists.

I hope you can see, Rob, why these people give RL and I such shivering fits. Its not because they disagree with us, its because they are lying to you.