Ten-Year Monitoring of the Grandes Jorasses Glaciers Kinematics. Limits, Potentialities, and Possible Applications of Different Monitoring Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General Comments

I have read in detail the article entitled ¨Ten-years Monitoring of the Grandes Jorasses Glaciers Kinematics. Limits, Potentialities and Possible Applications of Different Monitoring Systems¨ and i consider that it is in agreement with the aims and scope of the journal.

This work analyzes different techniques for monitoring glacial processes with high dynamics. A comparison has been made of the advantages and disadvantages of each of these techniques and also of the costs of the same and the logistical difficulties of each one. Which is very interesting and useful for the reader. The different dynamic processes of the glacial environment and the presence of human settlements in its vicinity generate a high risk factor, therefore, monitoring becomes a fundamental tool for prevention. Furthermore, considering that in the not too distant future these processes may increase due to increased temperatures. In this sense, this work provides very valuable information on possible monitoring techniques. Also, as an additional value, is that these monitoring techniques that have been applied in NW Italy can be applied in other mountainous regions.

The article has an adequate structure, there is fluency in reading, the different sections are well organized and the content of each one is appropriate. Therefore, it is suggested to accept the article with minor changes. In the specific comments, the authors will be able to find some observations and suggestions. 

Specific Comments

Line 42: A recent case study (Shugar et al., 2021) in the Indian Himalayas is a clear example of how these processes affect infrastructure and human life. It would be important to include this example.

Line 125: I consider that the main objective of this work and the data analyzed in it refer mainly to objective 3. The other 2 objectives have not been fully developed in this study. Even in the discussion section, almost exclusive reference is made to the advantages and disadvantages of each method, and a minimal mention to some glaciological processes. It is advisable to restructure these objectives.

Line 179: It would be important to include the angle threshold between the prism and the LOS for effective viewing.

Figure 4: In this graph it would be important to mention how many GNSS and Prisms have been used to calculate the average value.

Line 296: These magnitudes of displacement cannot be identified in figure 5.

Line 339: The dates indicated in this sentence do not coincide with those indicated in the caption of figure 9. Furthermore, it is not possible to observe in figure 9 the velocity values recorded according to the different LOS orientations.

Line 362: The map in figure 8 has been constructed with TIR values.

Line 380: In the version of the article that I have reviewed, there is no Figure 10.

Line 383:  In the version of the article that I have reviewed, there is no Figure 9a.

Author Response

See the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This article is to be published in a journal of the rank of RS without any modification.

Author Response

See the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,
Thank you for your detailed replay and your willingness to modify the paper as proposed by the reviewers.

I recommend the revised version of the paper to be published without modification.

Reviewer 3 Report

I agree that this manuscript fitted quite well with a technical note much better than a original research article. The authors have corrrected or replied my concerns. I think it is now qualified enough to be accepted.