Search

Melt ponds forming on Arctic sea ice in summer significantly reduce the surface albedo and impact the heat and mass balance of the sea ice. Therefore, their areal coverage, which can undergo rapid change, is crucial to monitor. We present a revised method to extract melt pond fraction (MPF) from Sentinel‐2 satellite imagery, which is evaluated by MPF products from higher‐resolution satellite and helicopter‐borne imagery. The analysis of melt pond evolution during the MOSAiC campaign in summer 2020, shows a split of the Central Observatory (CO) into a level ice and a highly deformed ice part, the latter of which exhibits exceptional early melt pond formation compared to the vicinity. Average CO MPFs are 17% before and 23% after the major drainage. Arctic‐wide analysis of MPF for years 2017–2021 shows a consistent seasonal cycle in all regions and years. Plain Language Summary: In the Arctic summer, puddles of surface melt water, called melt ponds, form on the sea ice. These melt ponds reduce the ability of the surface to reflect the sunlight. Instead, they absorb more solar energy and pave the way into the ocean beneath where the energy is also absorbed. Thus, it is important to know where these melt ponds develop and what fraction of the surface they cover. To investigate this, we present a classification algorithm that is used to extract the areal fraction of melt ponds from satellite measurements. The special focus of this study is the MOSAiC campaign in summer 2020, where the research vessel Polarstern drifted with an ice floe for 1 year. We can see a separation of this floe into two parts. One of them shows melt pond formation much earlier than the other. This is because of different ice age and surface properties. Additionally, we use the classification algorithm to analyze the differences of melt pond fraction between different dates and regions in the Arctic. Key Points: Algorithm to extract melt pond and open water areas from Sentinel‐2 imagery with maximum uncertainty of 6%Exceptional early melt pond formation on MOSAiC Central Observatory, summer 2020, compared to broader vicinityHigh spatial and temporal variability of melt pond fraction on local and regional scales [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comparing helicopter‐borne surface temperature maps in winter and optical orthomosaics in summer from the year‐long Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate expedition, we find a strong geometric correlation between warm anomalies in winter and melt pond location the following summer. Warm anomalies are associated with thinner snow and ice, that is, surface depression and refrozen leads, that allow for water accumulation during melt. Warm surface temperature anomalies in January were 0.3–2.5 K warmer on sea ice that later formed melt ponds. A one‐dimensional steady‐state thermodynamic model shows that the observed surface temperature differences are in line with the observed ice thickness and snow depth. We demonstrate the potential of seasonal prediction of summer melt pond location and coverage from winter surface temperature observations. A threshold‐based classification achieves a correct classification for 41% of the melt ponds. Plain Language Summary: We compare winter surface temperatures from an infrared camera with summer photographs of sea ice with melt ponds. The datasets were recorded from a helicopter during the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate expedition. Melt ponds form on sea ice in summer when the snow melts and water accumulates in the lower locations on the ice floes. Melt ponds are very important for the Arctic energy budget because they strongly change the sea ice brightness and thus the amount of solar energy absorbed by the ice. We find surface characteristics with similar size and location between warmer areas in winter and the location of melt ponds in summer. For a better process understanding, we calculate the surface temperature with a simple model and find that the warm temperature anomalies are due to thinner ice and snow. Stronger warm temperature anomalies appear in new cracks in the ice which are covered with newly formed, thin ice. With a temperature‐based classification, we are able to estimate the summer melt pond fraction. Key Points: Winter warm surface temperature anomalies are co‐located with melt pond locations in the following summerWarm anomalies appear in refrozen leads, in refrozen melt ponds, and in troughs between ridges, due to thinner snow and iceWe show the potential for prediction of summer melt pond fraction from winter surface temperatures [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eight atmospheric reanalyses were compared against observed vertical profiles of temperature, specific humidity and wind speed collected by two research aircraft in February--March 2010 in the Antarctic Peninsula region. These data offered a rare possibility to validate reanalyses against independent in situ data which have not been assimilated into the reanalyses. The reanalyses had generally too moist profiles with too low wind speeds, but otherwise the errors in the reanalyses had large spatial differences. On the eastern side of the peninsula, the near-surface temperatures were largely overestimated. None of the reanalyses outperformed the others in all variables, at all altitudes and on both sides of the peninsula. Generally, NCEP-CFSR and MERRA had the smallest errors in temperature profiles, JRA-55 had marginally the most accurate specific humidity profiles andNCEP-CFSR had the best wind profiles. The reanalyses were coherent, although biased, on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula, but on the eastern side the spread was large. All the reanalyses underestimated the variability between the individual profiles of temperature and wind speed. The modern reanalyses with a sufficient spatial resolution and an adequate data assimilation method outperformed the others, especially on the eastern side. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]