- Articles & preprints
- Submission
- Policies
- Peer review
- Editorial board
- About
- EGU publications
- Manuscript tracking

Journal cover
Journal topic
**The Cryosphere**
An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union

Journal topic

- Articles & preprints
- Submission
- Policies
- Peer review
- Editorial board
- About
- EGU publications
- Manuscript tracking

- Articles & preprints
- Submission
- Policies
- Peer review
- Editorial board
- About
- EGU publications
- Manuscript tracking

**Research article**
12 Aug 2020

**Research article** | 12 Aug 2020

A linear model to derive melt pond depth on Arctic sea ice from hyperspectral data

- Department of Geography, Kiel University, Kiel, 24118, Germany

- Department of Geography, Kiel University, Kiel, 24118, Germany

**Correspondence**: Marcel König (koenig@geographie.uni-kiel.de)

**Correspondence**: Marcel König (koenig@geographie.uni-kiel.de)

Abstract

Back to toptop
Melt ponds are key elements in the energy balance of Arctic sea
ice. Observing their temporal evolution is crucial for understanding
melt processes and predicting sea ice evolution. Remote sensing is the
only technique that enables large-scale observations of Arctic sea
ice. However, monitoring melt pond deepening in this way is
challenging because most of the optical signal reflected by a pond is
defined by the scattering characteristics of the underlying
ice. Without knowing the influence of meltwater on the reflected
signal, the water depth cannot be determined. To solve the problem, we
simulated the way meltwater changes the reflected spectra of bare
ice. We developed a model based on the slope of the log-scaled remote
sensing reflectance at 710 nm as a function of depth that is
widely independent from the bottom albedo and accounts for the
influence of varying solar zenith angles. We validated the model using
49 in situ melt pond spectra and corresponding depths from shallow
ponds on dark and bright ice. Retrieved pond depths are accurate
(root mean square error, RMSE=2.81 cm; *n*RMSE=16 %) and
highly correlated with in situ measurements (*r*=0.89; $p=\mathrm{4.34}\times {\mathrm{10}}^{-\mathrm{17}}$). The model further explains a large portion of the
variation in pond depth (*R*^{2}=0.74). Our results indicate that
our model enables the accurate retrieval of pond depth on Arctic sea
ice from optical data under clear sky conditions without having to
consider pond bottom albedo. This technique is potentially
transferrable to hyperspectral remote sensors on unmanned aerial vehicles, aircraft and
satellites.

Download & links

How to cite

Back to top
top
How to cite.

König, M. and Oppelt, N.: A linear model to derive melt pond depth on Arctic sea ice from hyperspectral data, The Cryosphere, 14, 2567–2579, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-2567-2020, 2020.

1 Introduction

Back to toptop
Melt ponds on sea ice are key elements for the Arctic energy budget. They are a main driver of the ice–albedo feedback mechanism (Curry et al., 1995) and affect the mass and heat balance of sea ice (e.g., Flocco et al., 2012; Perovich et al., 2009). Observations of pond evolution can be linked to observations of sea ice, ocean and atmosphere (e.g., Inoue et al., 2008; Polashenski et al., 2012; Webster et al., 2015) for validation of ice and climate models (e.g., Flocco et al., 2012) and future sea ice prediction (e.g., Schröder et al., 2014). In the context of climate change, it is therefore important to increase our understanding of how melt ponds on sea ice change (Lee et al., 2012).

Recent efforts were made to observe the evolution of melt pond fraction with satellite data (e.g., Istomina et al., 2015a, 2015b; Rösel et al., 2012; Tschudi et al., 2008; Zege et al., 2015), but few studies investigated melt pond depth despite its relevance for many applications. Melt pond depth is a parameter in the Los Alamos sea ice model CICE (Flocco et al., 2012; Hunke et al., 2013) and the ECHAM5 general circulation model (Pedersen et al., 2009). Lecomte et al. (2011) used pond depth to parameterize melt pond albedo in a snow scheme for the thermodynamic component of the Louvain-la-Neuve sea ice model. Holland et al. (2012) related pond water volume to surface meltwater fluxes in the community climate system model, version 4, and Palmer et al. (2014) used melt pond depths to model primary production below sea ice. Liu et al. (2015) point out that climate models and forecast systems that account for realistic melt pond evolution “seem to be a worthy area of expanded research and development” (Liu et al., 2015) and question the suitability of statistical forecasting methods in the context of the changing Arctic, which points towards the need for regular observations with large spatial coverage.

Synoptic observations of melt pond evolution are only possible with satellite remote sensing. Optical sensors with an adequate spatial resolution that operate in the visible (VIS) and near-infrared (NIR) wavelength regions enable the monitoring of pond water characteristics. The reflected optical signal from melt ponds without ice cover contains information on the pond water, the pond bottom, underlying ice and skylight reflected at the water surface.

Some studies investigated the potential to map the bathymetry of melt
ponds with optical data in supraglacial lakes on the Greenland ice
sheet. Tedesco and Steinar (2011) used the model of Philpot (1989) for
optically shallow water and resampled hyperspectral reflectance
measurements from below the water surface to Landsat and MODIS bands
in order to explore its capability to derive the depth of a
supraglacial lake. Due to the strong absorption of water in the near
infrared, they limited the data range to 450–650 nm and
excluded depth measurements <1 m “because of the
relatively small sensitivity of the reflectance data in the Landsat
and MODIS blue and green bands to shallow waters” (Tedesco and
Steiner, 2011). In comparison with shallow water sonar measurements,
they underestimated depth by −23.7% and −42.7% for Landsat
bands 1 and 2, respectively. Legleiter et al. (2014) used
hyperspectral remote sensing reflectance measurements above the water
surface to map the bathymetry of supraglacial lakes and streams. They
used an optimal band ratio analysis to find suitable band combinations
for calibrating an empirical model based on field measurements on the
Greenland ice sheet. A model based on two bands in the yellow–orange
wavelength region resulted in an *R*^{2} of 0.92 and a standard error
of 0.47 m for depths ranging between 0.31 and
10.45 m. While this accuracy may be sufficient for glacial
lakes, the maximum depth of ponds on sea ice is restricted by its
thickness and therefore seldom exceeds 1 m (e.g., Morassutti
and Ledrew, 1996; Perovich et al., 2009).

The color of melt ponds on sea ice ranges from bright blue to almost
black and is primarily defined by the scattering and, to a lesser
degree, by the absorption characteristics of the pond bottom (Lu
et al., 2016, 2017). Different radiative transfer models for melt
ponds on sea ice exist, but their capability to derive pond depth
varies. Lu et al. (2016, 2017) developed a two-stream radiative
transfer model to retrieve pond depth and the thickness of the
underlying ice from RGB images but did not find a clear relationship
between simulated and measured pond depth using the data from Istomina
et al. (2016). To our knowledge, the most accurate model is the one
presented in Malinka et al. (2018) resulting in an *R*^{2} of 0.62
(*N*=26) for in situ pond depths between 6 and 50 cm acquired
under different illumination conditions. Their analytical two-stream
radiative transfer model links the spectral albedo of ponds between
350 and 1300 nm at various sky conditions to pond depth and
transport scattering coefficient and thickness of the bottom
ice. Fitting these parameters during inverse computation of in situ
datasets from three field campaigns accurately reproduced in situ
albedo spectra (relative root mean square difference, *r*RMSD<1.5 %), but pond depth retrieval was more uncertain (*r*RMSD=65 %).

We hypothesize that instead of using the entire spectrum, selecting bands in the near-infrared wavelength region improves the retrieval of pond depth on sea ice from optical data. The penetration depth of light into water is highest in the blue region of the electromagnetic spectrum and decreases with increasing wavelength; i.e., with increasing wavelength the influence of the water column's attenuation on the optical signal increases (Pope and Fry, 1997). Mapping the bathymetry of supraglacial lakes with a two-band model is challenging because the attenuation of water is wavelength dependent and the range of depths is wide. For shallow ponds on sea ice, Morassutti and Ledrew (1996) stated that the influence of water absorption on the pond albedo increases towards the NIR wavelength region. Lu et al. (2016) found that pond albedo significantly depends on pond depth in the wavelength region between 600 and 900 nm. In this paper, we therefore present a linear pond depth model for Arctic sea ice based on the absorption of near-infrared light in water from hyperspectral optical measurements under clear sky conditions.

2 Methods

Back to toptop
We use spectral data of bare ice surfaces to simulate melt pond
spectra for model development and validate the model with in situ
melt pond measurements acquired during RV *Polarstern* cruise
PS106 in summer 2017.

We used two instrument setups for the acquisition of optical data. For
most measurements, we used a combination of two Ocean Optics STS-VIS
spectrometers (Ocean Optics Inc., USA): one spectrometer pointing
downwards and equipped with a 1^{∘} fore optic, the other
pointing upwards and equipped with a cosine collector. Both
instruments cover the wavelength region from ∼340 to
∼820 nm with a spectral resolution of 3.0 nm
(Ocean Optics, 2019). We used a Labsphere Spectralon^{®} 99 % diffuse
reflectance standard (Labsphere Inc., USA) as white reference and
applied the data from the second spectrometer to correct the
reflectance spectra for changes in downwelling irradiance. For each
measurement, we computed the average of 30 individual spectra. Both
instruments were mounted on the end of a 1 m long pole to
avoid influences of the polar clothes on the measurements. We also
attached a camera to the setup to take photographs of each measurement
site (Fig. 1).

Some of the data used in this study were acquired within the scope of
an angle-resolving bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) experiment. For these measurements, we used an
Ibsen Freedom VIS FSV-305 spectrometer (Ibsen Photonics A/S, Denmark)
with a spectral resolution of 1.8 nm covering the wavelength
range from ∼360 to ∼830 nm (Ibsen
Photonics, 2019). The spectrometer was equipped with an optical fiber
and a 1^{∘} fore optic that were attached to a field goniometer
(Fig. 2). We used the above-mentioned Spectralon^{®} panel as white
reference after each azimuthal scan and computed an average
reflectance from 20 spectra.

The quantity measured with both spectrometer setups is the remote
sensing reflectance (*R*_{rs}; sr^{−1}) above the water
surface:

$$\begin{array}{}\text{(1)}& {\displaystyle}{\displaystyle}{R}_{\text{rs}}={\displaystyle \frac{{L}_{\mathrm{u}}}{{E}_{\mathrm{d}}}},\end{array}$$

where *L*_{u} is upwelling radiance – W (m^{2} nm sr)^{−1} – measured by the downward-pointing sensor and *E*_{d} is
downwelling irradiance – W (m^{2} nm)^{−1} – which is derived from the Spectralon^{®}
measurement as

$$\begin{array}{}\text{(2)}& {\displaystyle}{\displaystyle}{E}_{\mathrm{d}}={\displaystyle \frac{{L}_{\mathrm{S}}\cdot \mathit{\pi}}{{R}_{\mathrm{S}}}},\end{array}$$

where *R*_{S} is the isotropic reflectance of the Spectralon^{®}
panel and *L*_{S} is a radiance measurement – W (m^{2} nm sr)^{−1} – of the Spectralon^{®} panel.

On 15 June 2017, we used the Ocean Optics setup to collect spectra from three bright and one dark bare ice surfaces (Gege et al., 2019) that were missing the typical surface scattering layer (Fig. 1a, b). We therefore assume that their optical properties are comparable to pond bottoms. Illumination was diffuse and stable which was indicated by the negligible standard deviation of the 30 spectra contained in one measurement (Fig. 1c).

On 2 July 2017 between 00:35 and 01:18 LST, we
performed 12 nadir measurements of a bare ice surface, likewise
missing a surface scattering layer (Fig. 2a), under clear sky
conditions and a mean solar zenith angle of 74.89^{∘} with the
Ibsen setup (Gege and König, 2019). Here we use the average
spectrum. The large standard deviation may be attributed to surface
metamorphism during the measurement (Fig. 2b).

On 10 June 2017, we collected 49 melt pond spectra (Gege et al., 2019) and corresponding pond depths in three melt ponds. Two of the ponds had a bright blue color, while the third one was very dark, which is also apparent in Fig. 3. The pond site was located in a ridged area, and ice thickness measurements from 14 June 2017 showed that ice thickness was ≥0.9 m below the bright ponds and ≤0.5 m below the dark pond, which indicates that the bright ice is older. We presume that the dark ice may have been a refrozen lead. However, no ice cores were analyzed to determine the respective ice types.

The bottoms of the bright ponds were mostly smooth and solid but also featured a few cracks and highly scattering areas that were very porous. The dark pond bottom was more heterogeneous and featured cracks and areas that were porous and riddled with holes (Fig. 4).

At each pond, we referenced the Ocean Optics spectrometers using the
Spectralon^{®} panel before data acquisition. We performed spectral
measurements from the edge of the pond or waded through the pond
avoiding shading. We did not observe any wind-induced disturbances of
the water surface and waited for the water surface to settle before
performing measurements inside the ponds. All measurements were
performed under clear sky conditions between 12:23 LST
and 14:43 LST and corresponding solar zenith angles
between 58.90 and 61.04^{∘}. Directly after each spectral
measurement, we used a folding ruler to measure pond depth at the same
location. Depths ranged between 6 and 25 cm with an average of
17.60 cm. Figure 5 illustrates the melt pond spectra
and corresponding pond depths.

Even though the spectra appear smooth at first view, the hardly visible amount of noise in the data becomes relevant for calculating derivatives. To smooth the spectra, we therefore resampled all spectra to a 1 nm spectral sampling by linear interpolation and then applied a running average filter with a width of 5 nm.

To develop an approach that does not require knowledge about on-site ice characteristics, our model must be independent from changes in the bottom albedo, i.e., scattering characteristics of the underlying ice. It shall further be applicable to a wide range of pond depths up to 1.0 m. Because the in situ melt pond dataset is limited to shallow depths and biased towards bright blueish ponds, we used the water color simulator (WASI) to create a spectral library covering different bottom type mixtures and depths. WASI is a software tool for the analysis and simulation of deep and shallow water spectra that is based on well-established analytical models (Gege, 2004, 2014, 2015; Gege and Albert, 2006). We used the forward mode of the program WASI-2D (v4.1) to generate libraries of melt pond spectra. The procedures are described in the following.

We used the Ocean Optics bare ice spectra from overcast sky conditions (Sect. 2.1.1) as pond bottom reflectance.

Analyses of optical properties of water samples showed only negligible
amounts of chlorophyll *a*, colored dissolved organic matter and total
suspended matter. Moreover, Podgorny and Grenfell (1996) report that
the signal of scattering in meltwater is overwhelmed by the
scattering in the bottom ice. We therefore defined a pure water column
without additional absorbing or scattering water constituents and
computed remote sensing reflectance in shallow water above the water
surface according to Eq. (2.20b) in Gege (2015):

$$\begin{array}{ll}{\displaystyle}& {\displaystyle}{R}_{\text{rs}}^{\text{sh}}\left(\mathit{\lambda}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{1}-\mathit{\sigma})(\mathrm{1}-{\mathit{\sigma}}_{L}^{-})}{{n}_{\mathrm{w}}^{\mathrm{2}}}}\cdot {\displaystyle \frac{{R}_{\text{rs}}^{\text{sh}-}\left(\mathit{\lambda}\right)}{\mathrm{1}-{\mathit{\rho}}_{\mathrm{u}}\cdot Q\cdot {R}_{\text{rs}}^{\text{sh}-}\left(\mathit{\lambda}\right)}}\\ \text{(3)}& {\displaystyle}& {\displaystyle}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}+{R}_{\text{rs}}^{\text{surf}}\left(\mathit{\lambda}\right),\end{array}$$

where *σ*, ${\mathit{\sigma}}_{L}^{-}$ and *ρ*_{u} are the
reflection factors for *E*_{d} and upwelling radiance
(${L}_{\mathrm{u}}^{-}$) and irradiance just below the water
surface. *σ* and *ρ*_{u} are 0.03 and 0.54,
respectively, while ${\mathit{\sigma}}_{L}^{-}$ is calculated from the viewing
angle (0^{∘} for a nadir-directed sensor). *n*_{w} is
the refractive index of water (≈1.33), and *Q* is a measure of
the anisotropy of the light field in water, approximated as
5 sr. ${R}_{\text{rs}}^{\text{sh}-}$ is the remote sensing
reflectance just below the water surface according to Albert and
Mobley (2003):

$$\begin{array}{ll}{\displaystyle}& {\displaystyle}{R}_{\text{rs}}^{\text{sh}-}\left(\mathit{\lambda}\right)={R}_{\text{rs}}^{-}\left(\mathit{\lambda}\right)\cdot [\mathrm{1}-{A}_{\text{rs},\mathrm{1}}\cdot \mathrm{exp}\mathit{\{}-\left({K}_{\mathrm{d}}\right(\mathit{\lambda})\\ {\displaystyle}& {\displaystyle}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{0.125em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{0.125em}{0ex}}+{k}_{\text{uW}}\left(\mathit{\lambda}\right))\cdot {z}_{\mathrm{B}}\mathit{\}}]+{A}_{\text{rs},\mathrm{2}}\cdot {R}_{\text{rs}}^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathit{\lambda})\cdot \mathrm{exp}\mathit{\{}-{K}_{\mathrm{d}}\left(\mathit{\lambda}\right)\\ \text{(4)}& {\displaystyle}& {\displaystyle}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{0.125em}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{0.125em}{0ex}}+{k}_{\text{uB}}\left(\mathit{\lambda}\right))\cdot {z}_{\mathrm{B}}\mathit{\}},\end{array}$$

where *A*_{rs,1} and *A*_{rs,2} are empirical constants and
*K*_{d}, *k*_{uW}, and *k*_{uB} describe the
attenuation of the water body with depth *z*_{B} defined by
its absorption and backscattering and the viewing and illumination
geometry. The first part of Eq. (4) describes the contribution
of the water body and the second part the contribution of the bottom.
${R}_{\text{rs}}^{-}$ is the remote sensing reflectance of deep water
just below the water surface defined by the absorption and backscattering
of the water body and the viewing and illumination
geometry. ${R}_{\text{rs}}^{\mathrm{b}}$ is the remote sensing
reflectance of the bottom that is defined as the sum of the fractional
radiances of all contributing bottom types defined by their albedos
and under the assumption of isotropic
reflection. ${R}_{\text{rs}}^{\text{surf}}$ in Eq. (3) is the
ratio of radiance reflected by the water surface and
*E*_{d}. We set ${R}_{\text{rs}}^{\text{surf}}$ to zero; thus,
the last part of Eq. (3) can be ignored. We further used a
solar zenith angle of 60^{∘}, similar to the in situ
measurements, and a viewing angle of 0^{∘} (nadir).

We computed linear mixtures of the two measured bottom albedos in 25 % steps (100 % dark, 0 % bright; 75 % dark, 25 % bright; …; 0 % dark, 100 % bright). Using this setup, we generated a spectral lookup table (LUT) by increasing pond depth from 0 to 100 cm in intervals of 1 cm, which is adequate for the great majority of melt ponds on Arctic sea ice. The final LUT contains 505 spectra (Fig. 6).

According to the Beer–Lambert law, the extinction of light at a
certain wavelength in a medium is described by an exponential
function. Here we assume that multiple scattering in meltwater and
(multiple) reflections at the pond surface, bottom and sidewalls can
be neglected to approximate the radiative transfer. Figure 7a
illustrates the exponential decrease in *R*_{rs} with water
depth at 700 nm for the five different bottom type
mixtures. To linearize the effect, we computed the logarithm of the
spectra (Fig. 7b). Lastly, we computed the first derivative of the
logarithmized spectra (Fig. 7c) for each band by applying a
Savitzky–Golay filter using a second-order polynomial fit on a
9 nm window (The Scipy community, 2019b).

We then computed Pearson's correlation coefficient (*r*) as
(The Scipy community, 2019c)

$$\begin{array}{}\text{(5)}& {\displaystyle}{\displaystyle}r(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{{\sum}_{i=\mathrm{0}}^{n-\mathrm{1}}({x}_{i}-\stackrel{\mathrm{\xb4}}{x})({y}_{i}-\stackrel{\mathrm{\xb4}}{y})}{\sqrt{{\sum}_{i=\mathrm{0}}^{n-\mathrm{1}}({x}_{i}-\stackrel{\mathrm{\xb4}}{x}{)}^{\mathrm{2}}{\sum}_{i=\mathrm{0}}^{n-\mathrm{1}}({y}_{i}-\stackrel{\mathrm{\xb4}}{y}{)}^{\mathrm{2}}}}},\end{array}$$

where *x*_{i} and $\stackrel{\mathrm{\xb4}}{x}$ are the depth of the *i*th
sample and the average depth, *y*_{i} and ý
are the slope of the logarithmized reflectance at a certain wavelength
of the *i*th sample and the average slope of the logarithmized
reflectance at a certain wavelength, and *n* is the number of samples.

The orange curve in Fig. 8 illustrates the wavelength-dependent correlation coefficients of the slope of the logarithmized spectra and pond depths in the LUT. We observe an almost perfect negative correlation in bands between 700 and 750 nm. We performed the same processing for the simulated spectra as for the in situ pond spectra. The blue curve in Fig. 8 illustrates the wavelength-dependent correlation coefficients of measured pond depth and the slope of the logarithmized in situ spectra. We likewise observe strong negative correlations in the wavelength region around 700 nm.

To investigate the similarity of the dark and bright ice spectra, we normalized both bottom spectra at 710 nm and found a high spectral similarity between ∼590 and ∼800 nm (Fig. 9). Consequently, the slope of the logarithmized spectra is widely independent from the chosen bottom albedo in this wavelength region. Assuming that this also applies to ice spectra recorded under clear sky conditions, we used the Ibsen bare ice measurement to develop a model for clear sky conditions accordingly.

Due to the strong negative correlation in the simulated as well as in the measured data, we chose the slope of the logarithmized spectrum at 710 nm ($r=-\mathrm{1.0}$ and −0.86 for simulated and in situ data, respectively) to develop a simple linear model. We used scikit-learn's LinearRegression function (Pedregosa et al., 2011) to fit a linear model to the simulated data with the Ibsen bare ice spectrum as bottom albedo using the method of ordinary least squares.

We found that the solar zenith angle affects the slope and
*y* intercept of the linear model. Because the model should be
applicable to a wide range of solar zenith angles, we implemented a
second model to derive the slope and *y* intercept of the linear model for
various solar zenith angles. We used WASI to generate spectral
libraries for different solar zenith angles (0, 15,
30, 45, 60, 75, 90^{∘}) and
found that the resulting change in slope and *y* intercept can each be
described by an s-shaped curve. We used SciPy's optimize.curve_fit
function (The Scipy community, 2019a) to fit generalized logistic
functions (Richards, 1959) into the data. Using these functions, the
model's slope and *y* intercept can be computed for different solar
zenith angles (Fig. 10).

The model is

$$\begin{array}{}\text{(6)}& {\displaystyle}{\displaystyle}z=a\left({\mathit{\theta}}_{\text{sun}}\right)+b\left({\mathit{\theta}}_{\text{sun}}\right){\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\partial \mathrm{log}{R}_{\text{rs}}\left(\mathit{\lambda}\right)}{\partial \mathit{\lambda}}}\right]}_{\mathit{\lambda}=\mathrm{710}\phantom{\rule{0.125em}{0ex}}\mathrm{nm}},\end{array}$$

where *z* is the predicted pond depth and *θ*_{sun} is the
solar zenith angle. *a* and *b* are offset and slope as follows:

$$\begin{array}{}\text{(7)}& {\displaystyle}{\displaystyle}a\left({\mathit{\theta}}_{\text{sun}}\right)=-\mathrm{20.6}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{0.79}}{\mathrm{0.8}+\mathrm{5.8}\mathrm{exp}{\left(-\mathrm{0.13}\cdot {\mathit{\theta}}_{\text{sun}}\right)}^{\frac{\mathrm{1}}{\mathrm{2}}}}}\phantom{\rule{0.125em}{0ex}}\left(\mathrm{cm}\right)\end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{ll}{\displaystyle}& {\displaystyle}b\left({\mathit{\theta}}_{\text{sun}}\right)=-\mathrm{1619.8}\\ \text{(8)}& {\displaystyle}& {\displaystyle}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{94}\phantom{\rule{0.125em}{0ex}}\mathrm{743.64}}{\mathrm{255.3}+\mathrm{7855}\mathrm{exp}{\left(-\mathrm{1.3}\cdot {\mathit{\theta}}_{\text{sun}}\right)}^{\frac{\mathrm{1}}{\mathrm{19.9}}}}}\phantom{\rule{0.125em}{0ex}}\left(\mathrm{cm}\right).\end{array}$$

We further computed the coefficient of determination (*R*^{2}) as
recommended by Kvålseth (1985) as

$$\begin{array}{}\text{(9)}& {\displaystyle}{\displaystyle}{R}^{\mathrm{2}}(y,\widehat{y})=\mathrm{1}-{\displaystyle \frac{{\sum}_{i=\mathrm{0}}^{n-\mathrm{1}}({y}_{i}-{\widehat{y}}_{i}{)}^{\mathrm{2}}}{{\sum}_{i=\mathrm{0}}^{n-\mathrm{1}}({y}_{i}-\stackrel{\mathrm{\xb4}}{y}{)}^{\mathrm{2}}}},\end{array}$$

where *y*_{i} and ${\widehat{y}}_{i}$ are the true
(simulated) and predicted values of the *i*th sample, *n* is the
number of samples, and ${\stackrel{\mathrm{\xb4}}{y}}_{i}=\frac{\mathrm{1}}{n}{\sum}_{i=\mathrm{0}}^{n-\mathrm{1}}{y}_{i}$ (Pedregosa et al.,
2011; scikit-learn developers, 2018). In addition, we also computed
the root mean square error (RMSE) as

$$\begin{array}{}\text{(10)}& {\displaystyle}{\displaystyle}\text{RMSE}(y,\widehat{y})=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{1}}{n}}{\sum}_{i=\mathrm{0}}^{n-\mathrm{1}}({y}_{i}-{\widehat{y}}_{i}{)}^{\mathrm{2}}}\end{array}$$

and the normalized RMSE (*n*RMSE) as

$$\begin{array}{}\text{(11)}& {\displaystyle}n\text{RMSE}(y,\widehat{y})={\displaystyle \frac{\text{RMSE}(y,\widehat{y})}{\stackrel{\mathrm{\xb4}}{y}}}\cdot \mathrm{100}.\end{array}$$

For the model described above, we obtained a perfect correlation (*r*=1.0; probability value $p=\mathrm{8.9}\times {\mathrm{10}}^{-\mathrm{172}}$), an
*R*^{2} of 1.0 and an RMSE of 0.56 cm (*n*RMSE=1 %) on the simulated training data.

3 Results

Back to toptop
We validated the model with the in situ melt pond dataset from dark
and bright ponds (Sect. 2.1.2) and observed a strong linear and
statistically significant correlation (*r*=0.86; $p=\mathrm{2.36}\times {\mathrm{10}}^{-\mathrm{15}}$; *R*^{2}=0.65; RMSE=3.29 cm and
*n*RMSE=19 %). Most of the points scatter along the 1:1
line except for one point whose actual depth is 10 cm and
predicted depth is 18 cm (Fig. 11a). The externally studentized residual (*t*) (Kutner et al., 2004; Seabold and Perktold,
2010) classifies this point as an outlier (*t*>3), and therefore we
excluded this point from the dataset. The removal of the outlier
improves all performance measures (*r*=0.89; $p=\mathrm{4.34}\times {\mathrm{10}}^{-\mathrm{17}}$; *R*^{2}=0.68; RMSE=3.11 cm;
*n*RMSE=18 %). The slope of the line of best fit increases
to 0.9686, and the intercept indicates an offset of
0.878 cm. If we further correct for the offset, *R*^{2}
increases to 0.74 and RMSE improves to 2.81 cm (*n*RMSE=16 %). The blue line is the line of best fit between actual and
predicted pond depths. The linear equation of the line of best fit
indicates that the model results in a small offset and a slope close
to 1.0.

4 Discussion

Back to toptop
Our results show that a simple model based on the derivative of the
log-scaled *R*_{rs} at 710 nm allows water depth
retrieval of dark and bright melt ponds on Arctic sea ice. The model
training on simulated data and the independent testing using in situ
measurements prove the applicability of our approach.

Measurements of albedo have a long tradition in Arctic research (e.g.,
Grenfell, 2004; Nicolaus et al., 2010; Perovich, 2002; Perovich and
Polashenski, 2012) because albedo is an important quantity in climate
models and can be measured with a single irradiance detector. In this
study, we conducted measurements of *R*_{rs} because our model
should be applicable to remote sensing data, and the quantity measured
in optical remote sensing is radiance. It is only appropriate to
derive an accurate radiance directly from the albedo of a Lambertian
surface. This assumption, however, is not valid for specular water
surfaces and may easily introduce errors. Morassutti and Ledrew
(1996) identified changing *E*_{d} as the main error
affecting reflectance data recording. To tackle this issue, we used a
combination of two spectrometers described in Sect. 2.1.

Field spectroscopy is influenced by external factors and the
measurement design itself. In contrast to ruler measurements, the
spectrometer acquires information of an area. To ease comparison and
limit the influence of spatial heterogeneities, we used a fore optic
with a 1^{∘} field of view to minimize the footprint (∼1 cm
at a height of 60 cm). However, holding the instruments
perfectly still for a period of several seconds is challenging, and
even small changes in the position result in changes in the viewing
angle, which increases the footprint of a measurement. For future
campaigns, we therefore recommend using a gimbal to minimize the
influence of roll and pitch of the handheld spectrometer
setup. Another issue might have been reflections of the black
spectrometer housings on the water surface possibly contributing to
the offset between modeled and measured data.

Different refraction indices of wet and dry surfaces may cause part of the observed offset. Furthermore, using bottom albedos obtained from dry surfaces in WASI introduce a systematic offset. However, it remains unclear if the ice surface used to compute the spectral library was wet or dry.

Some of the scattering may be introduced by reflectances at the water surface, which we did not consider in the LUT computation because the necessary values for the parametrization are unknown. Another influence may be the different solar zenith angles between bare ice and pond measurements. The potential influence of the mentioned factors may be worth further examination to refine the model.

Measuring the depth of a pond may appear trivial, but the bottom of a pond is frequently not flat and solid but can be slushy or riddled with holes. In addition, performing two measurements with a spectrometer and a folding ruler at the exact same location is difficult. We therefore recommend using a laser pointer at the end of the pole for orientation. These uncertainties explain some of the scattering in Fig. 11. Interpretation of field photographs of the pond bottoms, however, did not indicate any systematic errors associated with pond bottom characteristics.

The majority of the field data used in this study are from bright blue
ponds (*n*=38), while fewer measurements were obtained in dark ponds
(*n*=11). We addressed this limited diversity of field data by
computing a comprehensive LUT. The model generates accurate results
(RMSE=2.81 cm) on the entire in situ test dataset
and explains a large portion of its variability (*R*^{2}=0.74). On the dataset from the dark pond, *R*^{2} is less than 0 and nRMSE
is 35 %. The reason is that measurements from the dark pond
are very shallow (6–14 cm), and, thus, relative errors are
larger compared to the deeper bright ponds. In addition, the number of
data points is very small, and single outliers have a strong influence
on performance metrics. The range of scattering around the 1:1 line
(Fig. 11), however, is similar for the data from dark (RMSE=3.05 cm) and bright (RMSE=2.49 cm) ponds,
proving that the model's accuracy is similar for both subsets.

The data used in this study are the most comprehensive set of
*R*_{rs} and depth measurements from melt ponds on Arctic sea
ice acquired under clear sky conditions. The dataset, however,
originates from only three ponds, covering a limited variability of
bottom characteristics and pond depth. More validation data are
desirable to explore the model capabilities to derive pond depth from
deep dark and shallow bright ponds, for pond depth >25 cm,
and for a wider range of bottom types and solar zenith angles. In
addition, more tests are necessary to explore how the model performs
when the assumptions formulated in Sect. 2.2 are violated, e.g., when
algae, suspended matter or yellow substances are abundant in the pond
water or in the ice below the pond.

We successfully developed a model to accurately derive the depth of
melt ponds on Arctic sea ice without having to consider the bottom ice
characteristics of the pond; yet, we assume that we cannot entirely
avoid any influence. When fitting a model to the Ocean Optics LUT
(Fig. 7c), we observe scattering around the 1:1 line resulting in an
RMSE of 1.88 cm (*n*RMSE=4 %). In the Ocean
Optics LUT, however, the only variable parameter is bottom type
mixture; we therefore conclude that the scattering results from the
difference in bottom albedo. Consequently, bottom albedo may affect
the model, which may explain some of the scattering in the test data.

Optical satellite data can only be obtained under clear sky conditions,
but remote sensing images are likewise acquired from helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles. These platforms also operate under diffuse illumination
conditions, which are frequent in the Arctic. To check the validity of
the model for overcast conditions, we applied the clear sky model to
data from the same area acquired on 14 June 2017 during diffuse
illumination conditions. The performance, however, is low (Fig. 12)
and shows a moderate correlation (*r*=0.64; $p=\mathrm{2.6}\times {\mathrm{10}}^{-\mathrm{4}}$), an *R*^{2}<0 and an RMSE of 12.76 cm (*n*RMSE=63 %). We attribute the low performance to the different
illumination conditions. Under diffuse conditions, a considerable part
of the reflectance measured above the water surface is due to the
reflection of clouds at the water surface. Further, the optical path
length of the incoming light in water changes under overcast
conditions.

We therefore conclude that the present model is only valid for clear
sky conditions. The model accounts for the influence of varying solar
zenith angles, but field data were limited to solar zenith angles
between 58.9 and 61^{∘}. To enlarge its validity range,
more field data covering different weather and illumination conditions
are necessary.

5 Conclusions

Back to toptop
We present a linear model slope-based approach in the spectral region
around 710 nm to retrieve the depth of melt ponds on Arctic
sea ice. However, the model is not restricted to Arctic sea ice and
may be tested in shallow supraglacial ponds as well. The model
calibration on simulated data and independent validation on in situ
data prove the applicability and robustness of our approach. The
final model is valid for hyperspectral data (*R*_{rs}) acquired
under clear sky conditions and addresses varying solar zenith angles.

We used WASI to generate a LUT of pond spectra for five different
bottom albedos and pond depths between 0 and 100 cm assuming
clear pond water. We found that the slope of the log-scaled
*R*_{rs} at 710 nm is widely independent from the
bottom albedo and highly correlated with pond depth. Thus, we applied
a linear model to retrieve pond depth from *R*_{rs} in this
wavelength region. The slope and *y* intercept of the linear equation,
however, change with the solar zenith angle for which other models do not
account for (e.g., Legleiter et al., 2014; Tedesco and Steiner,
2011). To overcome this limitation, we trained linear models for seven
solar zenith angles in between and found that a general logistic function
is able to describe the change in slope and *y* intercept for each
solar zenith angle. The inputs for our model, therefore, are the slope
of the log-scaled ${R}_{\text{rs}}^{\mathit{\lambda}=\mathrm{710}}$ and sun zenith
angle. We successfully validated the model on in situ measurements (*r*=0.89; *R*^{2}=0.74; RMSE=2.81 cm;
*n*RMSE=16 %) with solar zenith angles between 58.9 and
61^{∘} and observed similar accuracies for bright and dark
ponds.

The next step is the transfer to hyperspectral airborne and satellite systems, e.g., EnMAP (Guanter et al., 2016), to enable a synoptic view on the evolution of melt ponds on Arctic sea ice. One constraint may be the size of melt ponds, which requires a high spatial resolution. We further assume that the additive signals of the atmosphere and reflections of skylight at the water surface may complicate the retrieval of pond depth with remote sensors. In addition, the sensitivities and band settings of remote sensors also affect the transferability of our approach. Here, further testing and comprehensive ground truth data are necessary. In these regards, we expect the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition to result in further improvements.

Data availability

Back to toptop
Data availability.

The data used in this study are available at the PANGAEA data repository under https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.908075 (König and Oppelt, 2020).

Author contributions

Back to toptop
Author contributions.

MK and NO conceptualized the study. MK designed the methodology, curated and analyzed the data, created and validated the models, visualized the results, and wrote the original draft. NO critically reviewed the draft, and both authors contributed to editing and finalizing the paper.

Competing interests

Back to toptop
Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

Back to toptop
Acknowledgements.

We thank Peter Gege for his encouragement and the provision of
WASI. We highly appreciate the support of the German Aerospace Center
(DLR) Oberpfaffenhofen and especially thank Thomas Schwarzmaier,
Stefan Plattner and Peter Gege for the development and provision of
the instruments used in this study. We further acknowledge the support
of captain Thomas Wunderlich, the crew, and the chief scientists, Andreas Macke
and Hauke Flores, of RV *Polarstern* cruise AWI_PS106_00, as well as
the assistance provided by the colleagues supporting our fieldwork on
PS106 especially Peter Gege, Gerit Birnbaum, Niels Fuchs, Martin
Hieronymi and Thomas Ruhtz. We would also like to thank Justin Mullins
at Write About Science for his valuable comments and Marcel Nicolaus
for his estimation of the pond site's ice type situation. Finally, we thank two
anonymous referees for their constructive critique, which helped us to
improve the paper, and Stef Lhermitte for his editorial efforts.

Financial support

Back to toptop
Financial support.

We acknowledge the financial support by DFG within the funding program Open Access Publizieren.

Review statement

Back to toptop
Review statement.

This paper was edited by Stef Lhermitte and reviewed by two anonymous referees.

References

Back to toptop
Albert, A. and Mobley, C.: An analytical model for subsurface irradiance and remote sensing reflectance in deep and shallow case-2 waters, Opt. Express, 11, 2873, https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.11.002873, 2003.

Curry, J. A., Schramm, J. L., and Ebert, E. E.: Sea Ice-Albedo Climate Feedback Mechanism, J. Climate, 8, 240–247, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1995)008{<}0240:SIACFM{>}2.0.CO;2, 1995.

Flocco, D., Schroeder, D., Feltham, D. L., and Hunke, E. C.: Impact of melt ponds on Arctic sea ice simulations from 1990 to 2007, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 117, C09032, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JC008195, 2012.

Gege, P.: The water color simulator WASI: an integrating software tool for analysis and simulation of optical in situ spectra, Comput. Geosci., 30, 523–532, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2004.03.005, 2004.

Gege, P.: WASI-2D: A software tool for regionally optimized analysis of imaging spectrometer data from deep and shallow waters, Comput. Geosci., 62, 208–215, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2013.07.022, 2014.

Gege, P.: The Water Colour Simulator WASI User manual for WASI version 4.1., 2015.

Gege, P. and Albert, A.: Tool for Inverse Modeling of Spectral Measurements in Deep and Shallow Waters, in Remote Sensing of Aquatic Coastal Ecosystem Processes – Science and Management Applications, edited by: Richardson, L. L. and LeDrew, E. F., Springer, 81–109, 2006.

Gege, P. and König, M.: HCRF measurements (Ibsen Freedom VIS FSV-305) of bare Arctic sea ice acquired during POLARSTERN cruise PS106/2, available at: https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.908073, 2019.

Gege, P., König, M., and Oppelt, N.: Reflectance measurements (Ocean Optics STS-VIS) of bare ice and melt ponds on Arctic sea ice acquired during POLARSTERN cruise PS106/1, available at: https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.908074, 2019.

Grenfell, T. C.: Seasonal and spatial evolution of albedo in a snow-ice-land-ocean environment, J. Geophys. Res., 109, C01001, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JC001866, 2004.

Guanter, L., Kaufmann, H., Foerster, S., Brosinsky, A., Wulf, H., Bochow, M., Boesche, N., Brell, M., Buddenbaum, H., Chabrillat, S., Hank, T., Heiden, U., Heim, B., Heldens, W., Hill, J., Hollstein, A., Hostert, P., Krasemann, H., Leitão, P. J., van der Linden, S., Mauser, W., Mielke, C., Müller, A., Oppelt, N., Roessner, S., Röttgers, R., Schneiderhan, T., Staenz, K., and Segl, K.: EnMAP Science Plan, EnMAP Technical Report., 2016.

Holland, M. M., Bailey, D. A., Briegleb, B. P., Light, B., and Hunke, E.: Improved sea ice shortwave radiation physics in CCSM4: The impact of melt ponds and aerosols on Arctic sea ice, J. Climate, 25, 1413–1430, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00078.1, 2012.

Hunke, E. C., Hebert, D. A., and Lecomte, O.: Level-ice melt ponds in the Los Alamos sea ice model, CICE, Ocean Model., 71, 26–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2012.11.008, 2013.

Ibsen Photonics: FREEDOM VIS Product Sheet, available at: https://ibsen.com/wp-content/uploads/Ibsen-Product-Sheets-FREEDOM-VIS.pdf, last access: 4 July 2019.

Inoue, J., Kikuchi, T., and Perovich, D. K.: Effect of heat transmission through melt ponds and ice on melting during summer in the Arctic Ocean, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 113, 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JC004182, 2008.

Istomina, L., Heygster, G., Huntemann, M., Schwarz, P., Birnbaum, G., Scharien, R., Polashenski, C., Perovich, D., Zege, E., Malinka, A., Prikhach, A., and Katsev, I.: Melt pond fraction and spectral sea ice albedo retrieval from MERIS data – Part 1: Validation against in situ, aerial, and ship cruise data, The Cryosphere, 9, 1551–1566, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-1551-2015, 2015a.

Istomina, L., Heygster, G., Huntemann, M., Marks, H., Melsheimer, C., Zege, E., Malinka, A., Prikhach, A., and Katsev, I.: Melt pond fraction and spectral sea ice albedo retrieval from MERIS data – Part 2: Case studies and trends of sea ice albedo and melt ponds in the Arctic for years 20022011, The Cryosphere, 9, 1567–1578, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-1567-2015, 2015b.

Istomina, L., Melsheimer, C., Huntemann, M., and Nicolaus, M.: Retrieval of Sea Ice Thickness During Melt Season From in Situ, Airborne and Satellite Imagery, 7678–7681, 2016.

Kutner, M. H., Li, W., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Neter, J.: Applied Linear Statistical Models, 5th Edn., 2004.

Kvålseth, T. O.: Cautionary Note about R 2, Am. Stat., 39, 279–285, https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1985.10479448, 1985.

König, M. and Oppelt, N.: Optical measurements of bare ice and melt ponds on Arctic sea ice acquired during POLARSTERN cruise PS106, PANGAEA, https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.908075, 2020.

Lecomte, O., Fichefet, T., Vancoppenolle, M., and Nicolaus, M.: A new snow thermodynamic scheme for large-scale sea-ice models, Ann. Glaciol., 52, 337–346, https://doi.org/10.3189/172756411795931453, 2011.

Lee, S. H., Stockwell, D. A., Joo, H.-M., Son, Y. B., Kang, C.-K., and Whitledge, T. E.: Phytoplankton production from melting ponds on Arctic sea ice, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 117, C04030, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007717, 2012.

Legleiter, C. J., Tedesco, M., Smith, L. C., Behar, A. E., and Overstreet, B. T.: Mapping the bathymetry of supraglacial lakes and streams on the Greenland ice sheet using field measurements and high-resolution satellite images, The Cryosphere, 8, 215–228, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-215-2014, 2014.

Liu, J., Song, M., Horton, R. M., and Hu, Y.: Revisiting the potential of melt pond fraction as a predictor for the seasonal Arctic sea ice extent minimum, Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 054017, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054017, 2015.

Lu, P., Leppäranta, M., Cheng, B., and Li, Z.: Influence of melt-pond depth and ice thickness on Arctic sea-ice albedo and light transmittance, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 124, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2015.12.010, 2016.

Lu, P., Leppäranta, M., Cheng, B., Li, Z., Istomina, L., and Heygster, G.: The color of melt ponds on Arctic sea ice, The Cryosphere, 12, 1331–1345, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-1331-2018, 2018.

Malinka, A., Zege, E., Istomina, L., Heygster, G., Spreen, G., Perovich, D., and Polashenski, C.: Reflective properties of melt ponds on sea ice, The Cryosphere, 12, 1921–1937, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-1921-2018, 2018.

Morassutti, M. P. and Ledrew, E. F.: Albedo and depth of melt ponds on sea-ice, Int. J. Climatol., 16, 817–838, 1996.

Nicolaus, M., Gerland, S., Hudson, S. R., Hanson, S., Haapala, J., and Perovich, D. K.: Seasonality of spectral albedo and transmittance as observed in the Arctic Transpolar Drift in 2007, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 115, 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JC006074, 2010.

Ocean Optics: STS-VIS SPECS, available at: https://oceanoptics.com/product/sts-vis-microspectrometer/{#}tab-specifications, last access: 26 March 2019.

Palmer, M. A., Saenz, B. T., and Arrigo, K. R.: Impacts of sea ice retreat, thinning, and melt-pond proliferation on the summer phytoplankton bloom in the Chukchi Sea, Arctic Ocean, Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II, 105, 85–104, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2014.03.016, 2014.

Pedersen, C. A., Roeckner, E., Lüthje, M., and Winther, J.: A new sea ice albedo scheme including melt ponds for ECHAM5 general circulation model, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D08101, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010440, 2009.

Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., and Duchesnay, E.: Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 12, 2825–2830, 2011.

Perovich, D. K.: Seasonal evolution of the albedo of multiyear Arctic sea ice, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JC000438, 2002.

Perovich, D. K. and Polashenski, C.: Albedo evolution of seasonal Arctic sea ice, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051432, 2012.

Perovich, D. K., Grenfell, T. C., Light, B., Elder, B. C., Harbeck, J., Polashenski, C., Tucker, W. B., and Stelmach, C.: Transpolar observations of the morphological properties of Arctic sea ice, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 114, C00A04, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JC004892, 2009.

Philpot, W. D.: Bathymetric mapping with passive multispectral imagery, Appl. Optics, 28, 1569, https://doi.org/10.1364/ao.28.001569, 1989.

Podgorny, I. A. and Grenfell, T. C.: Partitioning of solar energy in melt ponds from measurements of pond albedo and depth, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 101, 22737–22748, https://doi.org/10.1029/96JC02123, 1996.

Polashenski, C., Perovich, D., and Courville, Z.: The mechanisms of sea ice melt pond formation and evolution, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 117, 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007231, 2012.

Pope, R. M. and Fry, E. S.: Absorption spectrum (380–700 nm) of pure water II Integrating cavity measurements, Appl. Optics, 36, 8710, https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.36.008710, 1997.

Richards, F. J.: A Flexible Growth Function for Empirical Use, J. Exp. Bot., 10, 290–301, https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/10.2.290, 1959.

Rösel, A., Kaleschke, L., and Birnbaum, G.: Melt ponds on Arctic sea ice determined from MODIS satellite data using an artificial neural network, The Cryosphere, 6, 431–446, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-6-431-2012, 2012.

Schröder, D., Feltham, D. L., Flocco, D., and Tsamados, M.: September Arctic sea-ice minimum predicted by spring melt-pond fraction, Nat. Clim. Change, 4, 353–357, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2203, 2014.

scikit-learn developers: *R*^{2} score, the coefficient of determination,
available at:
https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/model_evaluation.html{#}r2-score
(last access: 13 February 2019), 2018.

Seabold, S. and Perktold, J.: Statsmodels: Econometric and statistical modeling with python, in: 9th Python in Science Conference., 2010.

Tedesco, M. and Steiner, N.: In-situ multispectral and bathymetric measurements over a supraglacial lake in western Greenland using a remotely controlled watercraft, The Cryosphere, 5, 445–452, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-5-445-2011, 2011.

The Scipy community: scipy.optimize.curve_fit, SciPy v1.2.1 Ref. Guid., available at: https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.optimize.curve_fit.html (last access: 11 July 2019), 2019a.

The Scipy community: scipy.signal.savgol_filter, SciPy v1.2.1 Ref. Guid., available at: https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.signal.savgol_filter.html?highlight=savgol{#}scipy.signal.savgol_filter (last access: 26 June 2019), 2019b.

The Scipy community: scipy.stats.pearsonr, SciPy v1.2.1 Ref. Guid., available at: https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.stats.pearsonr.html (last accessed 13 February 2019), 2019c.

Tschudi, M. A., Maslanik, J. A., and Perovich, D. K.: Derivation of melt pond coverage on Arctic sea ice using MODIS observations, Remote Sens. Environ., 112, 2605–2614, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2007.12.009, 2008.

Webster, M. A., Rigor, I. G., Perovich, D. K., Richter-Menge, J. A., Polashenski, C. M., and Light, B.: Seasonal evolution of melt ponds on Arctic sea ice, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 120, 5968–5982, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JC011030, 2015.

Zege, E., Malinka, A., Katsev, I., Prikhach, A., Heygster, G., Istomina, L., Birnbaum, G., and Schwarz, P.: Algorithm to retrieve the melt pond fraction and the spectral albedo of Arctic summer ice from satellite optical data, Remote Sens. Environ., 163, 153–164, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.03.012, 2015.

Short summary

We used data that we collected on RV *Polarstern* cruise PS106 in summer 2017 to develop a model for the derivation of melt pond depth on Arctic sea ice from reflectance measurements. We simulated reflectances of melt ponds of varying color and water depth and used the sun zenith angle and the slope of the log-scaled reflectance at 710 nm to derive pond depth. We validated the model on the in situ melt pond data and found it to derive pond depth very accurately.

We used data that we collected on RV *Polarstern* cruise PS106 in summer 2017 to develop a model...

The Cryosphere

An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union