Tenuous Correlation between Snow Depth or Sea Ice Thickness and C- or X-Band Backscattering in Nunavik Fjords of the Hudson Strait
, Monique Bernier 1,2, Jérome Simon 1, Saeid Homayouni 1,2, Véronique Gilbert 3, Yves Gauthier 1,2, Juupi Tuniq 4, Anna Wendleder 5 and Achim Roth 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
see attached document
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is aimed at assessing the correlation existing between the C/X-band backscatter over snow-covered sea ice. In particular, the effects of snow depth and ice thickness are studied by taking SAR measurements over three selected sites where systematic in situ samplings have been carried out for 3 consecutive years on winter (Jan, Feb) and spring (April, May) days. A consistent number of RADARSAT-2 and TerraSAR-X SAR images were collected for each site. Fieldwork and SAR samplings were displaced in time up to 21 days with an average of about 5/6 days.
The analysis of backscatter data has revealed a tenuous correlation with snow and ice parameters.
To achieve the objectives declared by the authors, in my opinion, this kind of study had to be carried out differently as done by the authors.
What is lacking in the collected dataset is strict monitoring of the snow/ice parameters other than other ambient parameters, which can indirectly affect the backscatter (e.g, wind, humidity).
Microwave backscatter is strongly influenced by the roughness of media interfaces (air/snow, snow/ice), media moisture, and by eventual inhomogeneities in the volume of media. From what I could understand from reading the manuscript, these constraints were not accounted for.
Furthermore, the backscatter vs ice parameters is presented after grouping them by months in a standardized form which makes it impossible to account for the effective role of the investigated parameters on the observed backscatter. Rather, I believe that this contributed to masking the snow/ice sensitivity, thus resulting in a poor (low) correlation.
This does not mean that it is untrue, but only that the method employed does not permit a definitive outcome.
To conclude my review, I believe that the paper needs substantial improvements before publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
in attached document
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have done a good job responding to my earlier comments. I find the manuscript flows better now and the message is clear and interesting. In my opinion it can now be accepted.
Minor comment: On page 2 lines 78-79 the authors should make it clear that the CP data is simulated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
