the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation of satellite methods for estimating supraglacial lake depth in southwest Greenland
Amber Leeson
Malcolm McMillan
Jennifer Maddalena
Jade Bowling
Emily Glen
Louise Sandberg Sørensen
Mai Winstrup
Rasmus Lørup Arildsen
Abstract. Supraglacial lakes form on the Greenland ice sheet in the melt season (May to October) when meltwater collects in surface depressions on the ice. Supraglacial lakes can act as a control on ice dynamics since, given a large enough volume of water and a favourable stress regime, hydrofracture of the lake can occur which enables water transfer from the ice surface to the bedrock where it can lubricate the base. The depth (and thus volume) of these lakes is typically estimated by applying a adiative transfer equation (RTE) to optical satellite imagery. This method can be used at scale across entire ice sheets but is poorly validated due to a paucity of in-situ depth data. Here we intercompare supraglacial lake depth detection by ArcticDEM digital elevation models, ICESat-2 photon refraction, and the RTE applied to Sentinel-2 images across five lakes in southwest Greenland. We found good agreement between the ArcticDEM and ICESat-2 approaches (Pearson’s r = 0.98) but found that the RTE overestimates lake depth by up to 153 % using the green band (543–578 nm) and underestimates lake depth by up to 63 % using the red band (650–680 nm). Parametric uncertainty in the RTE estimates is substantial and is dominated by uncertainty in estimates of reflectance at the lakebed which are derived empirically. Our analysis indicates that calculating depth with the RTE using literature-derived values for the parameters introduces significant uncertainty in the retrieval of depth information from optical imagery. Uncertainty in lake depth estimates translates into a poor understanding of total lake volume, which could mean that hydrofracture likelihood is under or over-estimated, in turn affecting ice velocity predictions. Further laboratory studies to constrain spectral radiance loss in the water column, and investigation of the potential effects of cryoconite on the estimation of lakebed reflectance could improve the RTE in its current format. However, we also suggest that future work should explore data-driven approaches to deriving lake depth from optical satellite imagery, which may improve depth estimates and will certainly result in better-constrained uncertainties.
- Preprint
(1368 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Laura Melling et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on tc-2023-103', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Aug 2023
Supraglacial lakes serve as proxies for ice dynamics on the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets, so recent research has employed a variety of techniques to derive lake depth and volume. This paper evaluates three platforms (ICESat-2, ArcticDEM, Sentinel-2) to estimate lake depth for five lakes on the Greenland Ice Sheet. A particular focus is given to the Sentinel-2 lake depths with a sensitivity analysis based on Sentinel-2 bands (green or red) and radiative transfer equation parameters. The authors found that ICESat-2 and ArcticDEM depths are generally in agreement for the five lakes, though both are limited in spatiotemporal coverage. Sentinel-2 is shown to be a more desirable platform to survey more lakes, but both the red and green bands struggle to agree with ICESat-2 and ArcticDEM. The authors conclude with a recommendation to improve calculation of lake bottom reflectance (Ad), which is shown to have a large influence on optically-derived lake depths.
Overall, I think this was an interesting study, and although the lake inventory is small compared to other studies, there is enough here to warrant publication in the TC. I especially appreciate the sensitivity analysis on the RTE parameters, and the use of ArcticDEM was unique.
Before I recommend final publication, there are a few issues that need to be addressed. They probably will not need too much extra analysis, but they warrant further discussion.
Major Comments
First, the conclusions suggest using ICESat-2 to constrain or correct the RTE methods. Although they do not use machine learning, Datta et al., (2021) uses ICESat-2 lake depths to constrain empirically-derived depths from Landsat-8, among other imagery sources. They also do not use the RTE equation used here, but I still think it is worth elaborating on how this study builds upon theirs (or how results from both could benefit the community).
On the subject of ICESat-2, its value for this study is not immediately clear to me. I assume that it serves as high-accuracy validation for the RTE and ArcticDEM methods, but this is not mentioned explicitly in the text. Also, ICESat-2 is barely discussed after Section 3.1. Between these issues and the sparse coverage over all five lakes (especially Lakes 4/5), the manuscript needs to provide more justification on why the ICESat-2 depths are useful here.
Minor Comments
Page 2, Line 32: For a general audience, I recommend mentioning why lakes prefer draining over refreezing (or vice versa).
Page 2, Lines 33-36: Hydrofracturing is formally defined on Line 36, so I would refrain from mentioning it until then.
Page 2, Lines 37-39: I suggest making this sentence more concise, or splitting it into two.
Page 2, Line 45: I would like to see a reference or two here demonstrating the importance of melt lakes for models, if possible.
Page 2, Line 51: Replace semi-colon with colon.
Figure 1: Nice figure! For panels 1-5, I would specify in the caption where the imagery is from.
Page 4, Lines 92-93: This sentence doesn’t add much justification – the following sentence is enough.
Page 6, first paragraph: This is overall well-written, but it is also getting a bit in the weeds. I suggest condensing it to something like: “Previous studies assumed that Ku≈ 1-2.5Kd, with Brodsky et al., (2022) suggesting that higher Ku values (and therefore higher g values) lead to more accurate lake depths. Here, we use an average of the above range and take Ku = 1.75Kd, or g = 2.75Kd.”
Page 7, Line 183: Outdated reference. Refer instead to Markus et al., (2017) – see “New References” section below for full citation.
Section 2.4, first paragraph: I suggest noting that the spacing between ICESat-2 beam pairs is 3.3 km, which limits the coverage of individual lakes.
Page 7, Line 186: Cite Neumann et al., (2019) with the mention of ATL03 usage.
Page 9, Lines 208-209: Not sure if I follow the logic here. Why not keep ICESat-2 at its native resolution, if the other datasets are resampled to 0.7 m?
Table 1: Given Figure 3, I don’t think this table adds much to the paper. I think a table showcasing the maximum depth for each lake and method would be more useful.
Figure 4: This is a really nice figure, and I think it merits more discussion. In particular, I notice DEM/RTE differences that seem to be related to depth. Also, the green band has expectedly large underestimations in a few spots for Lakes 4 and 5. I would like to see some speculation in the Results or Discussion on these points.
Page 15, Lines 269-270: For visual reference, I suggest pointing out the “plateau depths” in Figure 5, using a dotted line or marker(s).
Page 15, Line 275: “the agreement between the red band RTE depths and the ArcticDEM depths decreases [as a consequence of red band saturation.]”
Figure 6 caption, first sentence: Suggest rephrasing to “Sensitivity analysis of RTE parameters, with plausible values given for each.”
Lines 298-300: It might be a bit much to call this a flaw in the method. Water reflectance is very low (~0.1 in the red band) unless specular reflection is observed, so you would need a very dirty lake bottom to achieve negative lake depths. This could be a more feasible issue for the green band, but I would imagine that it is still very uncommon.
Page 17, Lines 318-320: Just curious, what is a saturation depth for the green band? A ballpark number is sufficient.
Page 17, Lines 326-328: This sentence has redundant wording. I suggest revising to something like, “We determined that use of the green band RTE can lead to lake volume overestimations of more than 150% relative to ArcticDEM, with similar overestimations expected at larger scales.”
Page 18, Line 339: “…and consistent overestimations in the green band.”
Page 18, Lines 344-347: Long sentence, needs to be more concise (or split into two sentences).
Page 20, Lines 406-407: Given that only five lakes were observed, this is a rather strong conclusion to make.
Appendix A, Section 1: “Characteristics” ---> “Criteria”
Table A1: The ICESat-2 data used for this study is out of date – Version 006 was released in June. As a sanity check, I would see if there’s any significant differences in the ICESat-2 V003/V006 data over the five lakes.
New References
Markus, T., Neumann, T., Martino, A. et al., (2017). The Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2): Science requirements, concept, and implementation. Remote Sensing of Environment, 190, 260-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.12.029.
Neumann, T., Martino, A., Markus, T. et al., (2019). The Ice, Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite-2 mission: A global geolocated photon product derived from the Advanced Topographic Laser Altimeter System. Remote Sensing of Environment, 233, 111325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111325.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2023-103-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on tc-2023-103', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Sep 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://tc.copernicus.org/preprints/tc-2023-103/tc-2023-103-RC2-supplement.pdf
Laura Melling et al.
Laura Melling et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
280 | 111 | 11 | 402 | 5 | 8 |
- HTML: 280
- PDF: 111
- XML: 11
- Total: 402
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1