Final decision of editor based on comments of two reviewers, minor to major revisions undertaken and the related detailed author-response.

Dear Adriano Lemos,
This paper received two detailed reviews were overall positive and pointed out the value of the high resolution dataset from a the new sentinel1b satellite-sensor and extension of previous datasets and potential for investigations on multi-annual to intra-annual variations in speed as well as the technical/methodological quality of the research.
Referee 1 was a bit more critical regarding the significance of the work and in particular thought some more discussion of the results and glaciological interpretation should be added to make the undertaken research more significant.
The authors addressed most raised points by the referees well and/or justified on how they addressed them. Briefly, the authors
- Improved the readability of the figures (line-width, symbol, size,…)
- Addressed all the minor technical points
- Clarified some technical points in the methodology
- Added some more literature/references where needed
- Added some more tables and overview figures analysing the seasonal variations (table 1) and documenting better the used datasets and data availability (Fig S2, tables1)
- Added some more discussion of results, context regarding seasonal variation and the value of the high temporal resolution (table 1) and slow-down of Jakobshavn. The discussion in the glaciological context remains still brief and perhaps somewhat limited, but the authors argue that the focus is not on the glaciological interpretation of the data but rather the potential of the approach, which I can accept, but which may a also little bit hamper the significance of the paper. which I can accept.
So overall and as an editor, I think the manuscript is now a valuable contribution to TC and is close to acceptance. After reading it carefully, I have a few minor points that should be considered/corrected before final publication and that are listed below.

Andreas Vieli 30 May 2018


List of minor points from Editor:

Regarding the high temporal resolution stated as 6 days (now more promoted and specified) and think this may in places need some checking of how it is phrased.
I agree that with sentinel1a and b you end up with a 6 day repeat/revisit cycle, but the velocities themselves represent 12 days average solutions (as stated so in methodology, but less clear elsewhere) which I think should throughout the document be clarified (e.g. in abstract p. 1 line 13; conclusions p. 7 line 10).

Similar, all over the document in particular in the figure captions, I would specify/complement more clearly/explicitly what the time period over which the shown velocities are averaged or calculated. e.g. add caption fig. 2 and 3 (average over 2014-2017) and in caption fig. 4 and maybe 5-7) that complement that velocities are from 12day periods.

Abstract, p1 line 13: do you mean 'SEASONAL speedup periods', clarify.

p. 5 line 6: '…stacked dataset (averaged over period 2014-2017)

p. 5 line 22: '…twice longer than FOR the other…'

Fig. 6 (and caption of it and in text p. 5 line 34): is it right that 'calving front anomaly' (y-axis in fig 6) refers to the anomaly in the calving front POSITION? I think adding the term 'position' in the text and figure label would make it much clearer.

p. 6 line 11: add a full stop after '…(25 days - Table 1)'

Acknowledgments: you could briefly acknowledge the referees as well.