the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 21 Jan 2026
Daily melt pond and net ice surface fractions in the Arctic Ocean from MODIS visible imagery: 2000–2024
Abstract. We report on a novel data set of the melt-pond fraction on Arctic sea ice. Melt ponds on Arctic sea ice are an important phenomenon of the summer-melt process. They reduce the surface albedo of sea ice substantially, by that influence the net shortwave radiation balance, and with that the amount of solar radiation energy that is received by the sea ice-ocean system in the Arctic during summer. This has also implications for under-ice biogeochemical processes and ice mechanics. Melt ponds have been observed by a number of satellite sensors, mostly in the optical and near-infrared wavelength range. Here we present an updated version of a spectral un-mixing approach published earlier that led to a data set of melt-pond fraction on Arctic sea ice with 8-daily sampling for months May through August from 2000 through 2011. The approach is based on reflectance measurements of channels 1, 3 and 4 of the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer MODIS on board the Earth Observation Satellite (EOS) Terra satellite. We modified the approach and derived the daily melt-pond fraction on Arctic sea ice at 500 m and at 12.5 km grid resolution for months June through August from 2000 through 2024 from MODIS v6.1 observations. In addition, we provide the net ice surface fraction – aka the fraction of sea ice without melt ponds – and the fraction of open water between the ice floes. Our MODIS melt-pond fraction agrees within -3 % to +4 % with independent estimates of the melt-pond fraction from very-high resolution optical satellite imagery and from Operation Ice Bridge Digital Camera System imagery. The MODIS open-water fraction we find to be too small by 2 % to 6 %; the net ice-surface fraction tends to be too large by 2 % to 9 %. The 12.5 km gridded product shows a slightly worse (by 1 %) agreement. While our 12.5 km gridded MODIS product under-estimates the melt-pond fraction from very-high resolution optical satellite imagery by about 2 % in the mean (median: 3 %), the Medium Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MERIS) product over-estimates these independent estimates by about 8 % (median: 9 %). Our MODIS melt-pond fraction data set is available from Sadikni and Kern (2025): https://doi.org/10.25592/uhhfdm.18069.
- Preprint
(5237 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-757', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Feb 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Stefan Kern, 02 Jun 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2025-757/essd-2025-757-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Stefan Kern, 02 Jun 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2025-757', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Mar 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2025-757/essd-2025-757-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Stefan Kern, 02 Jun 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2025-757/essd-2025-757-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Stefan Kern, 02 Jun 2026
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-757', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Feb 2026
This manuscript presents a new dataset of melt-pond fraction on Arctic sea ice, extending the original product time series from 2011 to 2024. While the extension of the data record is potentially useful, there are several major issues that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for acceptance in Earth System Science Data.
Currently, the manuscript lacks sufficient verification and discussion regarding data quality and associated uncertainties. The description of algorithmic improvements is not detailed enough, and there is a lack of clarity in the technical descriptions. Furthermore, the terminology used to describe data products is inconsistent, leading to confusion. To meet the standards of ESSD, the authors must provide a more rigorous validation and clearly articulate the added value of this dataset to the research community.
Major Comments
- Unclear Research Context and Gap: The introduction (Section 1) lacks a comprehensive review of recent research progress regarding melt ponds. Consequently, the motivation for this work and the specific research gap are unclear. Given the existence of numerous melt-pond datasets, the authors should provide a brief introduction and methodological description of existing products to better position their work within the current state of the art.
- Limited Innovation and Value: If the primary aim is simply to apply an existing method to daily MODIS reflectance data and extend the product record to 25 years, the novelty may be insufficient for publication in a high-impact journal like ESSD. Currently, the manuscript reads primarily as a data description without demonstrating significant additional value to the Arctic research community. The authors need to explicitly justify why this extension and methodological application constitute a significant scientific contribution.
- Contribution and Differentiation: This new dataset appears to be derived from the same approach as Rosel et al. (2012), utilizing MOD09GA V6.1 surface reflectance data. This resembles a repetition of previous data production work, suggesting limited new contribution. The authors must clearly illustrate the differences between this version and their previous work (2000–2011). I recommend adding a table or figure to explicitly compare the methodologies and outputs of the two versions.
- Manuscript Structure and Validation: The current structure is difficult to follow. I recommend swapping Section 4 and Section 5 (5.1 & 5.2). Readers typically prioritize product accuracy before examining spatial patterns. Regarding the accuracy evaluation: a) Product nomenclature is confusing; please standardize abbreviations and names throughout the text. b) Use standard accuracy evaluation metrics (e.g., R, bias, RMSE, mean/median bias). c) Include a comparative analysis with the previous version (2000–2011), particularly if algorithm modifications were made. d) In Figure 12, please add a difference analysis for the OLCI and MERIS products.
- Discussion Section: The current discussion does not adequately explain why the data differs significantly from existing products, nor does it identify the reasons for these discrepancies, future improvement directions, or the specific utility of the data. The section currently reiterates differences already presented in the Results rather than interpreting them. This repetition adds little value. The authors should focus on the physical implications of the differences, the clarity of data quality, and the specific advantages of this dataset. Importantly, all claims in the discussion must be supported by appropriate citations.
Minor Comments
L18: Please specify the metric used for the "-3% to +4%" range (e.g., bias, error margin).
L17–L24 (Abstract): Please use uniform product names when stating accuracy performance. I recommend replacing "MODIS melt-pond" and "MODIS open-water fraction" with the standard product names defined in the manuscript to avoid confusion. Additionally, spell out "MODIS" upon first use.
L26–L27: Please remove this sentence.
L106–L107: This statement is unclear; please paraphrase for clarity.
L110: This sentence is ambiguous and requires revision.
Section 2.2.1: Please provide more details on the sensors used, including spatial and temporal resolution and the standard product name. Please avoid using authors' names to represent datasets.
Section 2.2.3: Please specify the spatial resolution and time series coverage.
Eq. 1: Please provide a brief description of the condition r = 1.
Table 1: How were the reflectance values for melt ponds, snow/ice, and open water determined? Given that reflectance varies with viewing geometry, please discuss in the Discussion section how this might introduce uncertainties into the estimation results.
Section 3: Please explicitly list the differences between this "novel" method and the method of Rosel et al. (2012). Describe only the modified parts of the method in detail; other parts should be described briefly.
L214–L220: How was the training dataset for the three classes (melt pond, snow/ice, and open water) determined? Please provide more details.
L222–L224: Why was the structure of the ANN changed relative to Rosel et al. (2012) (3-9-27)? Please provide specific reasons for this modification.
Table 2: Please define "MAD" and "mean." Does "mean" refer to mean bias, difference of mean value, or another metric? Please ensure consistent terminology throughout the manuscript.
Fig. 6: Please add units to sub-figures a), c), and e).
L590–L595: Please validate both the Rosel et al. (2012) product and the product presented in this manuscript to support your comments.
L606: The accuracy difference is relevant to product quality, not solely the number of evaluation data points. Please clarify this argument.
L607: Please specify the methodological differences and highlight the pros and cons of each method.
L687: Please ensure terminology accurately reflects the level of innovation. This data is "new" in terms of temporal coverage, but the term "novel" implies methodological innovation, which should be used cautiously.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-757-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Stefan Kern, 02 Jun 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2025-757/essd-2025-757-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2025-757', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Mar 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2025-757/essd-2025-757-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Stefan Kern, 02 Jun 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2025-757/essd-2025-757-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Stefan Kern, 02 Jun 2026
Data sets
Daily melt-pond fraction on Arctic sea ice from TERRA MODIS visible imagery Remon Sadikni and Stefan Kern https://doi.org/10.25592/uhhfdm.18069
Model code and software
modis_meltpondfraction Remon Sadikni https://gitlab.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/BAO4478/modis_meltpondfraction
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 407 | 300 | 45 | 752 | 58 | 62 |
- HTML: 407
- PDF: 300
- XML: 45
- Total: 752
- BibTeX: 58
- EndNote: 62
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This manuscript presents a new dataset of melt-pond fraction on Arctic sea ice, extending the original product time series from 2011 to 2024. While the extension of the data record is potentially useful, there are several major issues that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for acceptance in Earth System Science Data.
Currently, the manuscript lacks sufficient verification and discussion regarding data quality and associated uncertainties. The description of algorithmic improvements is not detailed enough, and there is a lack of clarity in the technical descriptions. Furthermore, the terminology used to describe data products is inconsistent, leading to confusion. To meet the standards of ESSD, the authors must provide a more rigorous validation and clearly articulate the added value of this dataset to the research community.
Major Comments
Minor Comments
L18: Please specify the metric used for the "-3% to +4%" range (e.g., bias, error margin).
L17–L24 (Abstract): Please use uniform product names when stating accuracy performance. I recommend replacing "MODIS melt-pond" and "MODIS open-water fraction" with the standard product names defined in the manuscript to avoid confusion. Additionally, spell out "MODIS" upon first use.
L26–L27: Please remove this sentence.
L106–L107: This statement is unclear; please paraphrase for clarity.
L110: This sentence is ambiguous and requires revision.
Section 2.2.1: Please provide more details on the sensors used, including spatial and temporal resolution and the standard product name. Please avoid using authors' names to represent datasets.
Section 2.2.3: Please specify the spatial resolution and time series coverage.
Eq. 1: Please provide a brief description of the condition r = 1.
Table 1: How were the reflectance values for melt ponds, snow/ice, and open water determined? Given that reflectance varies with viewing geometry, please discuss in the Discussion section how this might introduce uncertainties into the estimation results.
Section 3: Please explicitly list the differences between this "novel" method and the method of Rosel et al. (2012). Describe only the modified parts of the method in detail; other parts should be described briefly.
L214–L220: How was the training dataset for the three classes (melt pond, snow/ice, and open water) determined? Please provide more details.
L222–L224: Why was the structure of the ANN changed relative to Rosel et al. (2012) (3-9-27)? Please provide specific reasons for this modification.
Table 2: Please define "MAD" and "mean." Does "mean" refer to mean bias, difference of mean value, or another metric? Please ensure consistent terminology throughout the manuscript.
Fig. 6: Please add units to sub-figures a), c), and e).
L590–L595: Please validate both the Rosel et al. (2012) product and the product presented in this manuscript to support your comments.
L606: The accuracy difference is relevant to product quality, not solely the number of evaluation data points. Please clarify this argument.
L607: Please specify the methodological differences and highlight the pros and cons of each method.
L687: Please ensure terminology accurately reflects the level of innovation. This data is "new" in terms of temporal coverage, but the term "novel" implies methodological innovation, which should be used cautiously.