the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Updated Arctic melt pond fraction dataset and trends 2002–2023 using ENVISAT and Sentinel-3 remote sensing data
Abstract. Melt ponds on the Arctic sea ice affect the radiative balance of the region as they introduce darkening of the sea ice during the Arctic summer. Temporal and spatial extent of the ponding as well as its amplitude reflect the state of the Arctic sea ice and are important for our understanding of the Arctic sea ice change. Remote sensing retrievals of melt pond fraction (MPF) provide information both on the present state of the melt pond development as well as its change throughout the years, which is a valuable information in the context of climate change and Arctic amplification.
In this work, we transfer the earlier published Melt Pond Detector remote sensing retrieval (MPD) to the Ocean and Land Colour Instrument (OLCI) data onboard the Sentinel-3 satellite and so complement the existing Medium Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MERIS) MPF dataset (2002–2011) from Environmental Satellite (ENVISAT) with the recent data (2017–present). To evaluate the bias of the MPF product, comparisons to Sentinel-2 MultiSpectral Instrument (MSI) high resolution satellite imagery are presented, in addition to earlier published validation studies. Both MERIS and OLCI MPD tend to overestimate the small MPFs, which can be attributed to the presence of water saturated snow and sea ice before melt onset. Good agreement for middle range MPF is observed, and the areas of exceptionally high MPF = 100 % are recognized as well.
The earlier published MERIS MPFs (2002–2011) were reprocessed using an improved cloud clearing routine and together with the recent Sentinel-3 data provide an internally consistent dataset, which allows to analyse the MPF development in the past 20 years. Although the total summer hemispheric MPF trend is moderate with +0.75 % per decade, the regional weekly MPF trends display pronounced dynamic and range from −10 % to as high as +20 % per decade, depending on the region. We conclude on the following effects:
- the global Arctic melt onset shifted towards spring by at least 2 weeks, with the melt onset happening in late May in the recent years as compared to early-mid June in the beginning of the dataset.
- there is a change of the melt onset regime in the recent years, with East Siberian and Laptev Sea dominating the melt onset and not the Beaufort Gyre region as before.
- the Central Arctic, North Greenland and CAA show signs of increasing first year ice (FYI) fraction in the recent years.
The daily gridded MPF averages are available at the webpage of the Institute of Environmental Physics, University of Bremen, as a historic dataset for the ENVISAT data, and as ongoing operational processing for the Sentinel-3 data.
- Preprint
(4173 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on tc-2023-142', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Nov 2023
Summary
This manuscript employs the MERIS melt pond retrieval algorithm on OLCI data. As MERIS and OLCI have almost same spectral response function, this transferability looks possible. However, there is still room for improvement in the research content of this paper. I recommend that the paper can be considered for publication after major revision.
Specific comments
I suggest dividing the results and discussion sections for better organization. Discussions are currently scattered throughout the paper.
I think there are spectral differences between MERIS and OLCI. The sensitive analysis should be done on the same targets (i.e., sea ice, melt pond, lead, and ocean) between MERIS and OLCI. Although MERIS and OLCI don’t have same temporal period, similar targets can be used. This analysis will show a good example applying the algorithm for old satellite to a successor satellite.
P4, L118: Multiple satellite have been used for their purpose, but it is hard to follow. It would be good to add a table summarizing satellites used in this paper. Furthermore, a flowchart of this paper would enhance clarity.
P5, L146: In terms of cloud screening, cloud shadows are appeared on the sea ice surface depending on angles. Please describe the cloud shadow removal process if authors did.
Figure3 c: Please explain why sentinel-3 OLCI MPF produces 1 comparing to different sentinel-2 MSI MPF.
P8, L225: Please justify why the authors select these two cases. I think there are good cases in the 50 scenes. In the 50 scenes, some cases (i.e., leads and small open water) highly affect melt pond fraction showing diverse spectral behavior. Please add more diverse cases.
Figure5 c: Please explain why sentinel-3 OLCI MPF produces 1 comparing to different sentinel-2 MSI MPF.
P13, L330: I don’t get it how this conclusion was reached.
P13, L357: Open water influence the retrieval of melt pond fraction. The leads and small open water surrounded by sea ice are also influence the retrieval of melt pond fraction. It would be good to mention this.
P14: While there is no map in the figure 9, the part 4 describes geographical information.
P17, 434-435: If sea ice type shift have progressed, it would be good to add melt onset data for this description.
Figure 11: Please demonstrate more about figure 11 in the paper.
4.2: The trend of Arctic sea ice concentration and thickness is steeper than long-term melt pond trend due to sea ice type shift above described?
Figure 12: It is difficult to see the many weekly trends. It would be good to show monthly trend instead of weekly with error bars.
Technical corrections
P9, L239: Figure 2a to Figure 3a?
P9, L242: level means level ice?
Figure7: IC means SIC?
What stands for OWF?
P13, L352: Please add this reference Rostosky et al., (2023) below.
P14, L367: data 2012-2016 not available should be mentioned.
Figure9: Please add some information about the thickness of blue and red color.
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Larysa Istomina, 03 Apr 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on tc-2023-142', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://tc.copernicus.org/preprints/tc-2023-142/tc-2023-142-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Larysa Istomina, 03 Apr 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on tc-2023-142', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Nov 2023
Summary
This manuscript employs the MERIS melt pond retrieval algorithm on OLCI data. As MERIS and OLCI have almost same spectral response function, this transferability looks possible. However, there is still room for improvement in the research content of this paper. I recommend that the paper can be considered for publication after major revision.
Specific comments
I suggest dividing the results and discussion sections for better organization. Discussions are currently scattered throughout the paper.
I think there are spectral differences between MERIS and OLCI. The sensitive analysis should be done on the same targets (i.e., sea ice, melt pond, lead, and ocean) between MERIS and OLCI. Although MERIS and OLCI don’t have same temporal period, similar targets can be used. This analysis will show a good example applying the algorithm for old satellite to a successor satellite.
P4, L118: Multiple satellite have been used for their purpose, but it is hard to follow. It would be good to add a table summarizing satellites used in this paper. Furthermore, a flowchart of this paper would enhance clarity.
P5, L146: In terms of cloud screening, cloud shadows are appeared on the sea ice surface depending on angles. Please describe the cloud shadow removal process if authors did.
Figure3 c: Please explain why sentinel-3 OLCI MPF produces 1 comparing to different sentinel-2 MSI MPF.
P8, L225: Please justify why the authors select these two cases. I think there are good cases in the 50 scenes. In the 50 scenes, some cases (i.e., leads and small open water) highly affect melt pond fraction showing diverse spectral behavior. Please add more diverse cases.
Figure5 c: Please explain why sentinel-3 OLCI MPF produces 1 comparing to different sentinel-2 MSI MPF.
P13, L330: I don’t get it how this conclusion was reached.
P13, L357: Open water influence the retrieval of melt pond fraction. The leads and small open water surrounded by sea ice are also influence the retrieval of melt pond fraction. It would be good to mention this.
P14: While there is no map in the figure 9, the part 4 describes geographical information.
P17, 434-435: If sea ice type shift have progressed, it would be good to add melt onset data for this description.
Figure 11: Please demonstrate more about figure 11 in the paper.
4.2: The trend of Arctic sea ice concentration and thickness is steeper than long-term melt pond trend due to sea ice type shift above described?
Figure 12: It is difficult to see the many weekly trends. It would be good to show monthly trend instead of weekly with error bars.
Technical corrections
P9, L239: Figure 2a to Figure 3a?
P9, L242: level means level ice?
Figure7: IC means SIC?
What stands for OWF?
P13, L352: Please add this reference Rostosky et al., (2023) below.
P14, L367: data 2012-2016 not available should be mentioned.
Figure9: Please add some information about the thickness of blue and red color.
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Larysa Istomina, 03 Apr 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on tc-2023-142', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Jan 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://tc.copernicus.org/preprints/tc-2023-142/tc-2023-142-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Larysa Istomina, 03 Apr 2024
Data sets
The OLCI MPD MPF dataset L. Istomina https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/olci/
Reprocessed MECOSI cloud screened MPD MPFs L. Istomina https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/meris/mecosi/
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
571 | 213 | 36 | 820 | 39 | 32 |
- HTML: 571
- PDF: 213
- XML: 36
- Total: 820
- BibTeX: 39
- EndNote: 32
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1