Comparison of Pond Depth and Ice Thickness Retrieval Algorithms for Summer Arctic Sea Ice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors compare the applicability of four methods for determining the depth of melted ponds and the thickness of ice under them, which in the context of global warming is an urgent task aimed at identifying the most effective methods for studying the optical properties of the ice surface of the Arctic zone.

The article is well structured. The results obtained by the authors can be practically applied by other researchers. There are a small number of misprints that do not reduce the scientific and practical significance of the article, but should be clarified and, if necessary, corrected.

There is a small wish to expand the content.

It seems to me that information is needed about the size, depth, lifetime, and shape of the “hollows” of melted ponds. Are all ponds round in shape with a uniform increase in depth from the banks to the center, something like a saucer? Or are ponds not round in shape and with an uneven increase in depth? Does the distribution of depth over the water area of ​​the pond differ in ponds of different sizes? According to figures 2 and 3, the depth of the studied ponds does not exceed one meter. What are the physical dimensions of the studied ponds? A few meters or tens/hundreds of meters?

I also had this question: if the depth within the same pond changes, then what values ​​are meant by Hp? Is this the maximum or average depth?

Some information is given on lines 314-315, but it is more appropriate to inform the reader of this in the methods section.

Also of interest is the question of the duration of the existence of such ponds and how quickly their depth changes.

Of course, this information is not directly related to the four compared methods for estimating the depth of ponds and the thickness of ice under them, but it will be useful, as it will allow the reader to better assess the practical applicability of the study results.

Some additional questions are given in attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have carefully read the paper and overall, I think it is an interesting work.

Although I am not a native English speaker, I believe the English needs polishing throughout the text.

My suggestion is that the paper should be accepted with revisions.

You may find in attachment the annotated pdf with comments for the authors.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.