the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Melt pond fractions on Arctic summer sea ice retrieved from Sentinel-3 satellite data with a constrained physical forward model
Abstract. The presence of melt ponds on Arctic summer sea ice significantly alters its albedo and thereby the surface energy budget and mass balance. Large-scale observations of melt pond coverage and sea ice albedo are crucial to investigate the role of sea ice for Arctic amplification and its representation in global climate models. We present the new Melt Pond Detection 2 (MPD2) algorithm, which retrieves melt pond, sea ice, and open ocean fractions as well as surface albedo from Sentinel-3 visible and near-infrared reflectances. In contrast to most other algorithms, our method uses neither fixed values for the spectral albedo of the surface constituents nor an artificial neural network. Instead, it aims for a fully physical representation of the reflective properties of the surface constituents based on their optical characteristics. The state vector X, containing the optical properties of melt ponds and sea ice along with the area fractions of melt ponds and open ocean, is optimized in an iterative procedure to match the measured reflectances and describe the surface state. A major problem in unmixing a compound pixel is that a mixture of half open water and half bright ice cannot be distinguished from a homogeneous pixel of darker ice. In order to overcome this, we suggest to constrain the retrieval with a priori information. Initial values and constraint of the surface fractions are derived with an empirical retrieval which uses the same spectral reflectances as implemented in the physical retrieval.
The snow grain size and optical thickness are changing with time and thus the ice surface albedo changes throughout the season. Therefore, field observations of spectral albedo are used to develop a parameterization of the sea ice optical properties as a function of the temperature history of the sea ice. With this a priori data, the iterative optimization is initialized and constrained, resulting in a retrieval uncertainty of below 8 % for melt pond and 9 % for open ocean fractions compared to the reference dataset. As reference data for evaluation, a 10 m resolution product of melt pond and open ocean fraction from Sentinel-2 optical imagery is used.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(28779 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(28779 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2194', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Nov 2023
Title: Melt pond fractions on Arctic summer sea ice retrieved from Sentinel-3 satellite data with a constrained physical forward model.
Overall: Melt ponds play a critical role in assessing the reflectance of sea ice and thus the surface energy balance. Determination of areal melt pond coverage is challenging, due to the variability in individual pond reflectance, and to the flat spectral reflectance of snow-covered ice and open ocean. The MDP2 technique presented in this paper utilizes physical parameterizations to determine individual pond reflectance rather than a single fixed reflectance curve, as well as 4 surface types to more accurately estimate pond coverage from a high-resolution satellite-based sensor (Sentinel-2). The results presented show promise to improve pond coverage parameterizations in sea ice models, as well as regional studies of the evolution of the sea ice surface.
The MDP2 technique is sound and presented clearly. The paper is well-written and the figures are important to explain intermediate and final results.I recommend accepting this paper after addressing a couple comments and the corrections that follow:
Specific comments:
Line # Comment
95 Should provide a citation for OSI-SAF drift data, and mention its tracking error
124 should read “from 2012 to 2022”
166 The assumption of clear melt water may lead to occasional error in actual pond reflectance, with dust and other aerosols present in or near the bottom of the pond. This is particularly true near coastal areas but have been shown to be transported from regions with high industrial activity. This would be difficult to address in this pond estimation technique but should be mentioned as a possible impact on pond reflectance.
230 Should read “This additional information…”
286 Should read “no longer considered…”
297 Should read “are NOT appropriate…”
372 Should read “both differences…”
456 End of sentence continues after Fig 14 – hard to find
525 Does Webster or others have MOSAiC aerial melt pond coverage, that can be directly compared to the derived pond fraction from MPD2?
559 need brackets about citationsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2194-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Hannah Niehaus, 11 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2194', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Nov 2023
The authors build on previous work on deriving melt pond fraction from Sentinel-3. The main improvement is including open ocean as additional surface type classification. The improvements to the algorithm are impressive when compared to the old algorithm and a better pan arctic melt pond fraction data is really good news! The methodology is sound and detailed, and the authors have done a good job of explaining it all in a logical order. Additionally, the figures are clear and contain a lot of information. I would have liked to see a more thorough assessment of errors (i.e. do they vary based on melt pond fraction), but given the lack of data for the and length of the paper it would be good to see it in future work.
I recommend accepting this paper.
L43: Satellites don’t cover all of the arctic.
L175: ?
L373: bothdifferences
In Figure 15, it would be nice to see a few more of the example scenes (and perhaps the S2 image?)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2194-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hannah Niehaus, 11 Dec 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2194', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Nov 2023
Title: Melt pond fractions on Arctic summer sea ice retrieved from Sentinel-3 satellite data with a constrained physical forward model.
Overall: Melt ponds play a critical role in assessing the reflectance of sea ice and thus the surface energy balance. Determination of areal melt pond coverage is challenging, due to the variability in individual pond reflectance, and to the flat spectral reflectance of snow-covered ice and open ocean. The MDP2 technique presented in this paper utilizes physical parameterizations to determine individual pond reflectance rather than a single fixed reflectance curve, as well as 4 surface types to more accurately estimate pond coverage from a high-resolution satellite-based sensor (Sentinel-2). The results presented show promise to improve pond coverage parameterizations in sea ice models, as well as regional studies of the evolution of the sea ice surface.
The MDP2 technique is sound and presented clearly. The paper is well-written and the figures are important to explain intermediate and final results.I recommend accepting this paper after addressing a couple comments and the corrections that follow:
Specific comments:
Line # Comment
95 Should provide a citation for OSI-SAF drift data, and mention its tracking error
124 should read “from 2012 to 2022”
166 The assumption of clear melt water may lead to occasional error in actual pond reflectance, with dust and other aerosols present in or near the bottom of the pond. This is particularly true near coastal areas but have been shown to be transported from regions with high industrial activity. This would be difficult to address in this pond estimation technique but should be mentioned as a possible impact on pond reflectance.
230 Should read “This additional information…”
286 Should read “no longer considered…”
297 Should read “are NOT appropriate…”
372 Should read “both differences…”
456 End of sentence continues after Fig 14 – hard to find
525 Does Webster or others have MOSAiC aerial melt pond coverage, that can be directly compared to the derived pond fraction from MPD2?
559 need brackets about citationsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2194-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Hannah Niehaus, 11 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2194', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Nov 2023
The authors build on previous work on deriving melt pond fraction from Sentinel-3. The main improvement is including open ocean as additional surface type classification. The improvements to the algorithm are impressive when compared to the old algorithm and a better pan arctic melt pond fraction data is really good news! The methodology is sound and detailed, and the authors have done a good job of explaining it all in a logical order. Additionally, the figures are clear and contain a lot of information. I would have liked to see a more thorough assessment of errors (i.e. do they vary based on melt pond fraction), but given the lack of data for the and length of the paper it would be good to see it in future work.
I recommend accepting this paper.
L43: Satellites don’t cover all of the arctic.
L175: ?
L373: bothdifferences
In Figure 15, it would be nice to see a few more of the example scenes (and perhaps the S2 image?)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2194-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Hannah Niehaus, 11 Dec 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
300 | 109 | 21 | 430 | 15 | 15 |
- HTML: 300
- PDF: 109
- XML: 21
- Total: 430
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Larysa Istomina
Marcel Nicolaus
Ran Tao
Aleksey Malinka
Eleonora Zege
Gunnar Spreen
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(28779 KB) - Metadata XML