Detecting Melt Pond Onset on Landfast Arctic Sea Ice Using a Dual C-Band Satellite Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Figure 4: the x axis unit is not clear.

This work is very relevant and significant for the fields of arctic sea-ice and climate study. The references are numerous and deeply analysed. The results are clear and well presented. Apart from the little correction I mentioned, I consider this work ready for publication.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for an interesting manuscript.

The paper presents a study of utilization of two satellite mission's C-band datasets to derive an algorithm for detection of onset of melt ponds on sea ice.

The novelty of the study and contribution to the scientific community is found in the use of extensive in situ data together with the two satellite datasets and the exploitation of the different polarity of the remote sensing observations. The study is limited to sea ice frozen to the shore, fast ice, and a specific region (the Canadian Arctic Archipelago), which also somewhat limits the potential impact of the study. The manuscript could be strengthened by including more discussions on the potential for wider used, along with this, also the limitations and unknowns related to a possible Pan-Arctic implementation.

The manuscript is generally well-written and presents a thorough and confined study. Improvements are suggested especially regarding the discussions as mentioned above and detailed comments are found below.

I recommend acceptance of the manuscript with minor revisions.

Detailed comments listed by line numbers are given here (“->” means “change to”):

Line 21-22: Perhaps rephrase, three standard deviations of what?

Line 25: delete “percentages”

Line 26-27: -> , has potential for providing

Line 27: -> estimation of the timing of sea ice melt pond onset using

Line 145: -> grid

Line 149: -> triplets (from the three beams of ASCAT);

Line 181: Please explain EW

Line 183: and other places; I wonder if the webpages should be listed in the text or moved to the references with a reference number and date of last visit???

Line 248-249: Either write “EM waves” or “polarized waves” to clarify type of wave.

Line 322: Some kind of introduction to the section would be good here similar to the beginning of section 4.3. Like: First…, then… and finally…

Line 370: -> backscatter and that environmental factors (wind speed, air temperature)…

Line 408-409/Figure 1: Perhaps highlight the specific site numbers in “bold” in Figure 1. That would make them easier to locate.

Line 444: How to you know when melt pond drainage occurs???

Line 448/Figures 5, 7, 9, and 11: Perhaps use thicker lines in legend as navy, black and orange are difficult to see. Also, I assume that “orange” is BELOW 3m/s.

Line 600/Figure 13: Please explain what the filled black dots represent

Line 605: -> could not

Line 615-616: Please comment on how often this is the case.

Line 661-: Add more discussion on the limitations related to the specific regions, possibilities for implementation more widely, and what the main concerns/unknowns would be?

Line 638: And what are the numbers for 2018?

Line 661: promise->potential

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No further comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf