Geodetic reanalysis of annual glaciological mass balances (2001–2011) of Hintereisferner, Austria

Klug, Christoph; Bollmann, Erik; Galos, Stephan Peter; Nicholson, Lindsey; Prinz, Rainer; Rieg, Lorenzo; Sailer, Rudolf; Stötter, Johann; Kaser, Georg

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-833-2018

Articles | Volume 12, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-833-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-833-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 12, issue 3

Research article

|

06 Mar 2018

Research article |

| 06 Mar 2018

Geodetic reanalysis of annual glaciological mass balances (2001–2011) of Hintereisferner, Austria

Christoph Klug, Erik Bollmann, Stephan Peter Galos, Lindsey Nicholson, Rainer Prinz, Lorenzo Rieg, Rudolf Sailer, Johann Stötter, and Georg Kaser

Download

Final revised paper (published on 06 Mar 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 14 Aug 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of the manuscript by Christoph Klug and colleagues entitled „A reanalysis of one decade of the mass balance series on Hintereisferner, Ötztal Alps, Austria"', Michael Zemp, 30 Aug 2017
- AC1: 'tc-2017-132 - final response', Christoph Klug, 17 Nov 2017
RC2: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Sep 2017
- AC2: 'tc-2017-132 - final response', Christoph Klug, 17 Nov 2017

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Christoph Klug on behalf of the Authors (15 Dec 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (11 Jan 2018) by Valentina Radic

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (14 Jan 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

You did a good job reorganizing the paper and addressing my concerns and those of Referee #1. Below, I've provided some minor editorial suggestions where needed. Do note that you need to revise text/equations (3) and (5), however.

Abstract: Strike ‘The validity of the results is critically assessed and concludes’ and replace with ‘We conclude that …’.

Pg. 1, line 21: Change sentence to, ‘Long term records of surface mass balance often contain unquantifiable errors or biases that should be corrected prior to their use (Zemp et al., 2015).

Pg. 2, line 18: Change ‘reanalize’ to ‘reanalyze’ .

Pg. 2, line 18: Change ‘This is achieved…’ to ‘We achieve this reanalysis through a…’

Pg. 3, line 2: Change ‘amongst’ to ‘among’.

Pg. 7, line 7: Why is ‘\DeltaV’ used to denote ‘mass change’ here. Volume times density is mass. I’m presuming you mean the latter? Revisions required here.

Pg. 9, lines 1-2: Choose either ‘C’ or ‘K’ for reporting temperatures in manuscript.

Pg. 6, line 19: Write out all numbers less than 10 unless number is a measurement. (e.g. 1 cm but ‘five stable control areas’).

Pg. 6, lines25-30: Something is not correct with Equation 3. The summation is only for SD but not for number of pixels? It is essential that the reader understand what you are doing here.

Figures and Tables

Fig. 4 Caption: What does ‘corrected’ mean? Its inclusion in the caption is not required. Second sentence of caption isn’t required (just ensure you make that point in the text and refer back to the figure).

Table 1. Provide units for flying height. Change ‘Date of acquisition’ to ‘Acquisition date’

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (16 Jan 2018) by Valentina Radic

AR by Christoph Klug on behalf of the Authors (18 Jan 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (03 Feb 2018) by Valentina Radic

AR by Christoph Klug on behalf of the Authors (05 Feb 2018)

Short summary

This study presents a reanalysis of the glacier mass balance record at Hintereisferner, Austria, for the period 2001 to 2011. We provide a year-by-year comparison of glaciological and geodetic mass balances obtained from annual airborne laser scanning data. After applying a series of corrections, a comparison of the methods reveals major differences for certain years. We thoroughly discuss the origin of these discrepancies and implications for future glaciological mass balance measurements.