Abstract:

The statement of the research objective should be clearly articulated. The goal of investigating the optical and physical properties of refreezing ponds must be explicitly stated. What exactly is the spectral range? What are the surface characteristics of the ice-cover? This is not entirely clear in its current form. The abstract should clearly communicate that the primary objective is to generate a dataset focused on albedo-based classification of surface states, with particular emphasis on refrozen melt ponds (which remain under-documented compared to seasonal albedo variations). The exact goal should be distinctly stated—what and why. If there are multiple objectives, they could be presented in order of priority. For example, the development of the methodology could be considered one of the objectives, along with the spatial and temporal variation of albedo and the relationship between physical and optical properties.

General comments: he albedo categorization is unclear. What is the basis for the threshold? Since the distinction of 'classes' or types is vital, it may benefit from a brief explanation of the rationale behind this threshold. Why does refreezing specifically matter, and how does your classification fill a particular gap?

Introduction:

• Line 35: "The surface albedo of sea ice in summer is largely determined by the melt ponds" — This is an overstatement, as bare ice areas still contribute significantly.
• After Line 45: I would suggest adding 1-2 sentences on why the refreezing period specifically matters (e.g., the transition from net melting to ice growth and model parameterization challenges during shoulder seasons). This addition would provide better context and emphasize the importance of documenting this stage. This also connects more smoothly to the section discussing existing knowledge gaps.

In-situ Data:

• The comprehensive spatial coverage, especially from multiple Arctic basins, is commendable.
• Line 66-67: Could you briefly explain the reasoning behind the constraint imposed on data collection (overcast skies), defined by visual observation? Were clear-sky conditions excluded? If so, could you explain why, since this would exclude direct-beam scenarios?
• Line 35: The term "Surface scattering layer" — It might help to provide a brief definition for non-specialist readers.

Methodology:

• Lines 65-66: Was the constraint on data collection (overcast skies) based on visual observation? If clear-sky conditions were excluded, could you explain why, since this would exclude direct-beam scenarios?
  
  
  
  
• Lines 84-87: It should be clearly stated which physical properties were measured (and how), and which instruments were used to measure ice lid thickness and pond depth. This would improve reproducibility and help clarify the relevance and quality of the collected data.
  
  
  
  
• Line 63: Multiyear ice is mentioned. Were all stations clustered in certain regions or ice types? Could this potentially impact the representativeness of the data?
  
  
  
  
• Line 86: Were locations randomly selected? If there was a deliberate choice behind location selection, could this introduce bias or affect the representativeness of the data?
  
  
  
  
• Table 1: It would be helpful to include information on which year each instrument was used (e.g., CNr4 measurements applied in 2012, 2014, and 2016). In the text, this could be elaborated to clarify the distinction between different radiometers and their corresponding wavelength ranges.
  
  
  
  
• Lines 64-65: The calibration process is improved by using different coefficients for different surfaces. However, is there a potential circular dependency? That is, could there be a risk of misclassifying a pond initially, which would then lead to the application of the wrong calibration coefficient, reinforcing the misclassification? Also, how confident is the visual classification? Could this be slightly subjective? It might be worth exploring this further.
  
  
  
  
• Lines 65: Water ponds or water-ice ponds? It might be useful to clarify this distinction.
  
  
  
  

Results:

• Lines 176-177: It would be preferable to avoid speculating about the reduction or slowdown unless statistical analysis is used to account for differences.
• Figure 6: Consider increasing the font size at the top of the graph for better readability.
• Lines 189-194: Could you clarify whether these percentages are based on the number of observations or area coverage?
• Section 3.1: A clearer separation between observations and interpretations would be beneficial. Consider distinguishing between: 1) Measured albedo changes; 2) Observed surface state changes and 3) Mechanism hypotheses
• Line 215-217: Why emphasize the SHEBA comparison if ice type is a key variable? It seems that since 0.14 is equidistant from 0.12 and 0.2 but considerably different from 0.4, it might be better to state that the results align more closely with the dark pond literature, rather than general melt pond values.
• Line 237-238: Please carefully identify the source of noise. It is important to accurately describe instrumental limitations rather than referring to solar physics.
• Lines 385-393: You claim that >90% of ponds are frozen by late August/early September, yet Figure 6a shows only around 30% ice ponds and approximately 50% ice-snow/snow ponds by early September (Lines 190-191). Please reconcile these numbers or clarify what "frozen surface" refers to—are water-ice ponds counted as frozen?
• Lines 418-424: The critical finding that existing MPF algorithms (PCA, LinearPolar) fail to identify snow ponds and underestimate MPF during freeze-up is currently buried. This finding could be elevated as a main result rather than being relegated to the discussion section.
• Lines 441-445: Could the error from observations (which your model improves upon) be quantitatively shown?
• Lines 429-440 (Summary): The summary appears to introduce new information that was not present in the results section. For instance, the comparison of slower observations in the Amundsen Basin (Line 437) seems to be new. A summary should synthesize previously presented findings.
• Line 439: Typo: "aα412/α667" should be corrected.
  
  
  
  

General comments

The manuscript from Zhu et al. identifies the role of ice-lead thickness, melt-pond depth, and substrate ice thickness in total and spectral albedo values of melt ponds. Melt ponds have a large impact on sea ice albedo during the summer and fall. Moreover, their characteristics also differ during the refreezing season (August-September) compared to the fast-melting period (June-July). Therefore, this study addresses relevant aspects of Arctic sea ice life cycle. Results from the observations of total and spectral albedo, along with the radiative transfer simulations, are well described with comprehensive step-by-step explanations. However, some effort is required to introduce the radiative transfer model, to avoid copying and pasting equations and text from Lu et al. (2016), and instead to highlight what was adapted in the model for this specific analysis. The discussion section will also benefit from a comparison between the observations and satellite measurements (see specific comments). The summary should be expanded to a conclusion that identifies the strengths and limitations of this study and outlines the next steps to advance the analysis.

Specific comments

Line 21: “and thus control the radiative forcing in the Arctic Ocean and the world (Hudson, 2011)”. Would it be possible to rephrase the sentence for more accuracy, avoiding “the world” which sounds simplistic in the context of the paper?

Line 65: “short-term and long-term ice stations” could these stations be identified in Table 1 or in Figure 1? Did you notice significant discrepancies in total albedo or spectral albedo due to the sampling duration?

Line 92: lambda in the equations should be defined.

Section 2.2 this section has to be significantly reworked to specify what differs from  than Lu et al. (2016) and to clearly identify the novel elements of the present analysis.

Figure 3: it should be acknowledged in the figure legend that it has been adapted from Lu et al. (2016).

Lines 112: the equations are exactly the same than in Lu et al. (2016) along with the description until line 117. It should be acknowledged. It should also be better to highlight how adding the ice lid is impacting the equations and what is different in the calculations compared to previous studies.

Line 119: in which equations/calculation R1 and R2 are used in the analysis?

Line 167: “As a result, the calibration reduces the median deviation of CNR4 measurements from 0.2 to 0.06” is this reduction applied to all types of melt ponds? Maybe add some values in Fig. 5c and 5d to highlight the impact of the calibration.

Figure 6b:  what does the colorbar represent? What about the numbers and uncertainty/standard deviation in red? MP96, IA94, etc. are not defined yet.          

Line 278:  “which is consistent with observation in Malinka et al. (2016)”  Can you elaborate more on the agreement between your observations and previous studies?

Line 288: Can you better introduce α₄₁₂/α₆₆₇  as no results are presented in section 3.2 about α₄₁₂/α₆₆₇ and it is only in section 4 that references are made to this ratio.

Line 290: “that some uncertainty remains in this result” Can you be more accurate about the uncertainties? Can the uncertainty be quantifiable?

Line 299: “a correlation coefficient of 0.12 is found between” how is it calculated? Using values from figure 7 and figure 9?

Line 333: “a radiative transfer model” add “described in Section 2.2.

Line 394: “except for the influence of temperature and radiation which is discussed in section 3.2”, the influence should be reminded to complement the discussion.

Section 4 discussions:

Wavelengths corresponding to MODIS bands are selected to identify the limits of the ratio used to identify snow covered pond. The analysis would be stronger if some in situ observations were compared with collocated MODIS measurements to assess how effectively the satellite performs and under which conditions MODIS is too limited. If a case study cannot be conducted, some references to MODIS pond identification should be cited and compared with the present study.

Two melt pond retrieval algorithms developed for satellite data are applied to the observations from the present study. Although references for both algorithms are provided, it would be helpful to introduce their underlying principles and to specify if any adaptations made to use them with in situ measurements. This could be included in the Supplementary Information to complement the study’s methodology. Again, a case study comparing observations and Sentinel-2 data would be a valuable addition to extend the analysis to satellite observations.

Section 5 Summary:

The summary should be expanded into a forward-looking conclusion that clearly states the study’s limitations and outlines concrete next steps. What is still required to improve the analysis and reduce the uncertainties? What would be necessary if these observations were conducted again (e.g., meteorological data and snow depth, etc.)? How will the parametrization of the radiative transfer model be used? Is there a potential study to improve the identification of snow-covered ponds from satellite? What kind of refreezing melt pond studies does the community need to advance understanding of sea ice albedo?

Technical comments

Line 92: the equations should be numbered.

Line 317: More consistency should be applied for defining the acronyms to avoid confusion. Some acronyms are defined in Figure 10 legend and then used in the text without explanation: line 312 “the fitting result is close to that of ML96 and SP07”. Etc.

Line 416: the opposite is also observed, PCA algorithm and LinearPolar Algorithm are defined in the text line 418 but not in the Figure 13 legend.

Figure 11: unit of H should be defined.

Figure 13: use color-coded makers as in previous figures to help readers distinguish between the different types of met ponds.

References: Rösel and Kaleschke, 2011 is missing in the bibliography.

There are two references for Wang et al. (2020). They should be labeled a and b to avoid confusion, or differently to distinguish the different authors.