A new approach to estimate ice dynamic rates using satellite observations in East Antarctica

Kallenberg, Bianca; Tregoning, Paul; Hoffmann, Janosch Fabian; Hawkins, Rhys; Purcell, Anthony; Allgeyer, Sébastien

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-1235-2017

Articles | Volume 11, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-1235-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-1235-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 11, issue 3

Research article

|

17 May 2017

Research article |

| 17 May 2017

A new approach to estimate ice dynamic rates using satellite observations in East Antarctica

Bianca Kallenberg, Paul Tregoning, Janosch Fabian Hoffmann, Rhys Hawkins, Anthony Purcell, and Sébastien Allgeyer

Download

Final revised paper (published on 17 May 2017)
Preprint (discussion started on 09 Dec 2016)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of: A new approach to estimate ice dynamic rates using satellite observations in East Antarctica By Kallenberg et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Dec 2016
RC2: 'review of Kallenberg et al., TCD, 2016', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Jan 2017
AC1: 'Authors response to tc-2016-269', Bianca Kallenberg, 02 Mar 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Bianca Kallenberg on behalf of the Authors (02 Mar 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (08 Mar 2017) by Michiel van den Broeke

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (12 Mar 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Summary:
The manuscript is greatly improved from its original version. Minor comments are listed below.

My only major comment is that you still must provide justification in the manuscript regarding why you apply RACMO2.1 data as input for your firn compaction model, not RACMO2.3. In your response you state that it is because you would need to reinitialize your firn compaction model but isn’t that worthwhile if RACMO2.3 is more accurate? You need to justify why you use an older version of a model, even if it’s simply because you don’t have the computational resources to re-run the firn compaction model. This additional justification is particularly important because you compare dynamic mass change results obtained using SMB estimates from both versions of RACMO, despite using only one version of RACMO to estimate firn compaction.

You must also provide some context regarding what constitutes “strong”, “weak”, “slight”, and “general” trends and “slight” over- or under-estimates in your discussion section even if you do not choose to include numbers in this section. Otherwise the reader cannot fully assess the validity of your results.

Detailed Comments:
- p 1, line 18: Change to “… ice sheet mass balance and surface elevation, or to develop…”
- p 1, line 24: “correlated”
- p 2, line 5: Remove “dynamic” because it has a different connotation elsewhere in the manuscript
- p 2, lines 14-15: Remove these lines about firn because you just included them in lines 10-11.
- p 2, line 28: “are either estimated using satellite altimetry observations”
- p 3, line 15: Change “ice sheet changes due to ice dynamic rates” with “ice sheet dynamic mass change”
- p 5, line 21: “correct for cross-track variations in surface elevation due to surface slope”
- p 5, lines 22-24: This is repetitive. You say the same thing at the beginning of the paragraph.
- p 6, line 7: “crossover height rate”? Do you mean rate of elevation change at track crossovers? You should say “height rate of change” or something similar throughout this section because “height rate” is somewhat ambiguous.
- p 6, line 13: How does the inclusion of along- and cross-track elevation change estimates improve the accuracy of the slope correction? Aren’t you using the same DEM for all your slope corrections? I would assume that the inclusion of elevation change estimates using both methods simply improves the spatial coverage of the results if you aren’t using the data to construct a time-evolving DEM.
- p 7, line 1: Replace “, evaluated using” with “which is in good agreement with”.
- p 9, line 24: Replace “have been obtained” with “were obtained”.
- p 15, line3: Replace “around 8 mm” with “~8 mm”.
- p 15, line 27: “error in the modeled GIA signals in our study region is considered negligible”.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (03 Apr 2017) by Michiel van den Broeke

AR by Svenja Lange on behalf of the Authors (13 Apr 2017) Author's response

ED: Publish as is (16 Apr 2017) by Michiel van den Broeke