High-resolution boundary conditions of an old ice target  near Dome C, Antarctica

Young, Duncan A.; Roberts, Jason L.; Ritz, Catherine; Frezzotti, Massimo; Quartini, Enrica; Cavitte, Marie G. P.; Tozer, Carly R.; Steinhage, Daniel; Urbini, Stefano; Corr, Hugh F. J.; van Ommen, Tas; Blankenship, Donald D.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-1897-2017

Articles | Volume 11, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-1897-2017

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

Special issue:

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-11-1897-2017

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

Articles | Volume 11, issue 4

Research article

| Highlight paper

|

14 Aug 2017

Research article | Highlight paper |

| 14 Aug 2017

High-resolution boundary conditions of an old ice target near Dome C, Antarctica

Duncan A. Young, Jason L. Roberts, Catherine Ritz, Massimo Frezzotti, Enrica Quartini, Marie G. P. Cavitte, Carly R. Tozer, Daniel Steinhage, Stefano Urbini, Hugh F. J. Corr, Tas van Ommen, and Donald D. Blankenship

Download

Final revised paper (published on 14 Aug 2017)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 20 Jul 2016)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of Young et al.: High resolution boundary conditions of an old ice target near Dome C, Antarctica', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Aug 2016
RC2: 'Review of: High resolution boundary conditions of an old ice target near Dome C, Antarctica, Young and others', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Oct 2016
RC3: 'Review of "High resolution boundary conditions of an old ice target near Dome C, Antarctica"', Anonymous Referee #3, 11 Oct 2016
AC1: 'Response to reviews on "High resolution boundary conditions of an old ice target near Dome C, Antarctica"', Duncan Young, 17 Jan 2017

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Duncan Young on behalf of the Authors (14 Feb 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (17 Feb 2017) by Ed Brook

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (26 Feb 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I found that the paper became an exciting one. With this paper, readers will know details of the glaciological conditions in the Dome C area in terms of Oldest Ice. Some readers may be confused by orientations of some maps. The authors use "projected Northings" and "projected Eastings" in main figures 2 and 5. In the text, they sometimes use geographical directions and sometimes unclear. For example, I did not understand meaning of North or South in Figure 3(bottom). I hope the authors to use a consistent orientation of the map. I here list items that I noticed. I think that this manuscript is ready for publication if these points are solved.

P.1, L.10 "ice of less than 3000 m" -> "ice thickness of less than 3000 m"
P.5, L.18 "shown in green on Fig. 3" I did not find green in this Figure. Perhaps the authors meant Fig. 2c.
P.6, L.7 Again, Fig.3 should be Fig.2c. Figure 3 does not seem a reconnaissance line.
P.7, Figure 3 bottom Is "North" projected north or true north?
P.8, L.3 -6 It was hard to understand directions of XY (which is X, which is Y?) and geographical directions (projected or true?).
P.9, bottom line of caption of Fig. 4 "Projection for Easting ... Polar Stereographic" This sentence does not provide readers if they use true directions or not.
P.11, Table 2 and Table 3 I am confused because I did not find consistency between Table 2 and Table 3. I mean, "mean deviation" of two tables should agree with a relative manner in principle. But it seems that they do not agree with each other at all in a relative manner. Am I misunderstanding something?
P.11, footnote "*" of Table 3 It seems that the difference is from Bedmap2 here, and not from the OIA-only grid. Am I misunderstanding something?
P.12, 3rd and 4th lines in the caption of Fig. 5. The authors wrote, "show that all of the candidates aside from the innermost portion of Candidate A lie over regions of high driving stress". I do not see so on the map. I think this statement needs to be reconsidered.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (28 Feb 2017)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (12 Apr 2017) by Ed Brook

AR by Duncan Young on behalf of the Authors (12 May 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (21 Jun 2017) by Ed Brook

AR by Duncan Young on behalf of the Authors (23 Jun 2017) Manuscript

Short summary

To find records of the greenhouse gases found in key periods of climate transition, we need to find sites of unmelted old ice at the base of the Antarctic ice sheet for ice core retrieval. A joint US–Australian–EU team performed a high-resolution survey of such a site (1 km line spacing) near Concordia Station in East Antarctica, using airborne ice-penetrating radar. We found promising targets in rough subglacial terrain, surrounded by subglacial lakes restricted below a minimum hydraulic head.