|Review on “The sensitivity of landfast sea ice to atmospheric forcing in single-column model simulations: a case study at Zhongshan Station, Antarctica” by Gu et al.,|
The sensitivity of landfast sea ice to atmospheric forcing using a case study at Zhongshan Station, Antarctica is a very interesting study and is of great significance for the large-scale simulation of landfast ice in Antarctica, because the atmospheric reanalysis data in Antarctica are uncertain, and how these uncertainties affect the results of sea ice simulation is not very clear.
Based on the comments and suggestions of the previous round, the author has made appropriate modifications to the paper, because I recommend that the paper can be considered for publication after some minor revisions. The following are some comments:
The parameterization scheme of the model has not been reasonably described, especially the parameterization of the oceanic heat treatment. Readers do not know how to set some parameters and parameterization schemes of processes. In addition, it is not that the simulation result is consistent with the measurement that the simulation is reasonable. When one parameter causes the simulation result to be too large and another causes the result to be too small, the result is also close to the measurements.
Line 118 “the measurement accuracy is better than ±0.5 ℃”-- the accuracy of this type of sensor is ±0.1 ℃.
Table 1 “Snowdrift” is not implemented in the model. Thus, the modelled result will be underestimated compared with the observed value because the snow in this area will accumulate around small islands or icebergs under the action of wind-driven snow blowing.
Line 191 “ERA5 was 1.168 ℃ lower than the in situ observation” --Truncation of one decimal place is sufficient.
Line 258 “. In other words, the enormous bias in snow depth seems to have little effect on the sea ice thickness in the simulation. This counter-intuitive finding is of great interest to us because it disobeys the general realization that the snow layer significantly modifies the energy exchange on top of the sea ice..”
We can't say that if the simulation results of sea ice thickness are good, it can show that the effect of snow is small. This may be due to two reasons: 1) the thermal insulation of snow itself and the formation of snow ice counteract each other, as your later analysis; 2) the unreasonable description of other processes and contributions leads to the opposite contribution against snow, which counteracts each other. Therefore, you can further compare the conductive heat flux or temperature gradient through the ice, especially at the top layer. In this way, we can see the impact of snow.
Figure 3: In fact, all simulation experiments can not reasonably describe the accumulation process of snow, so the process of snow blowing is very important, which is also the future development direction of the model, and some discussions can be added.
Line 311: into the ice surface HN: It is snow surface or ice surface?
Line 331: “the increase in sea ice thickness will reduce the heat transfer between the ocean and the atmosphere” change to “the increase in sea ice thickness will reduce the heat loss from the ice cover”
Line 378 “ the simulated snow depth deepens ” change to “ the simulated snow depth increases”
Line 402 “The superimposed ice is implemented in ICEPACK via the melt ponds parametrization but has not been considered in this study because the deformation information of sea ice is not available”
Neither melt pond nor superimposed ice formation process can be directly related to sea ice deformation. Superimposed ice is formed by the refreezing of melt water penetrating into the ice surface. The distribution of melt pond can be related to the roughness of ice surface.