This study presents the results of an assimilation study using satellite-derived melt to nudge the MAR snow-temperature, to improve simulations of surface melt. The study builds on Kittel et al., 2022 that already presented this procedure, but for a different region, and adds extra satellite nudging products and discusses its sensitivity.

The paper is detailed, presents sophisticated results and its application might be important for improving contemporary simulations of surface melt and can likely be of benefit to the cryospheric community and beyond. However, it is poorly written (I would advise a native English speaker to look at the text, or a stronger contribution from the co-authors) hence several things are unclear, it is chaotically structured, and needs some serious revamping to warrant publication in TC. I have numerous technical and structural comments, but also some major criticisms that I will discuss one by one below.

I hope the authors can adress my comments, improve the readability and then I am willing to review the manuscript again after major revisions.

Major comments

1. I miss the applicability of this assimilation technique for Antarctica. In Antarctica melt-rates are relatively unimportant in the contemporary climate, and for future simulations this assimilation technique obviously does not work. What will this technique provide us with? Some extra words/paragraph, either in the introduction, or in the conclusions, or both, should be spent on this to improve the relevance of this paper.
   
   
   
   
2. Slightly related to point 1, I miss a recommendation based on the results of this study. Would the authors advise to use this technique on all future simulations, or is the main aim to provide better uncertainty estimates? I advise the authors to take a stronger stance on what is the main take-home message of the study.
   
   
   
   
3. I miss a thorough evaluation of the actual modelled surface melt. There are several AWS on the AP that close the SEB (Jakobs, C. L. et al., (2020)) and enable a much more detailed and independent evaluation of simulated melt production. In turn, these can then be used to actually provide (a part of) the uncertainty calculation that the authors hint at in the last sentence of the abstract, which would really improve the papers conclusions and applicability (see point 1).

Minor (line by line) comments

First of all, the paper is poorly written and many things unclearly explained, and I found it really difficult to understand the methodology. I will provide some suggestions and point to some of the parts that I do not understand, but overall I advise the authors to edit the paper with an experienced English speaking (or experienced) academic writer, as I believe the inexperience in academic writing is the main cause of the problems.

Secondly, several sections should be restructured or rewritten, I will provide some suggestions below.

L2-5: unclear. Too much detailed and lengthy information for an abstract, can be considerably shortened by just writing something like the following: “However, RCMS are subject to biases, which Remote Sensing (RS) products can help solving. Here, we assimilate several satellite products that detect surface melt into the RCM MAR…” etc.

L10-11: This seems ambigiuous, are the previous two methods not also assimilations?

L14-15: Way too detailed for an abstract. Shorten

L17: A refreeze of what?

L22-23: Good to end the abstract with this (but I expect you to end the conclusions section likewise). Can you extend slightly on this?

Abstract overall: Please shorten and simplify the abstract!

L25: Here you mention both polar ice sheets, and in the following sentence you immediately move to Greenland. This transition can be improved.

L27: Here you should distinguish between grounded ice mass loss and actual mass loss, especially if later in the introduction you want to emphasize the importance of surface melt (i.e. hydrofracture and grounded ice acceleration)

L28: Why is surface melting not yet a big concern now?

L36: RCMs are not yet introduced, rephrase

L38: what do you mean with “other independent sources of uncertainties”. Vague!

L39-41: How does this assimilation technique compare to other common techniques such as reanalyses?

L42: What do you mean with sequentially? Reword

L45: what is a complex surface hydrology?

L46: isn’t it more like 10km scale?

L47: rephrase

L49: “multiple” comes out of the blue and confuses me, rephrase

L50-51: Is it, or will it be, a promising technique? Outside of Kittel 2022, there is not really any other study doing this right?

L52: Again, vague, and repeat of the previous.

Figure 1: It’s George VI, not Georges

L54-55: you already mentioned this in the beginning of the introduction.

This paragraph needs to be rewritten or completely removed; most info is repeated or obsolete. Your paper is about assimilating melt, so spend time on explaining melt and why it is important to improve melt simulations.

L67-72: This paragraph is all over the place, again repeating previously introduced information. Rephrase it and make it more concise by just writing: “Here, we assimilate different satellite observations of melt in the RCM MAR, etc”. The Methods section is to explain the actual details, pros and cons of the products.

L78: Introduce what a binary melt mask is, I did not know.

L78: Three sensors? Sensors on the satellites? The three satellites? Unclear.

L79: radiometer is a new word, should be introduced. Are all satellites equipped with microwave radiometers?

L84: this is not correct. Liquid water can't be melting. Rephrase to something like: "Here,we relate subsurface liquid water with subsurface melting". Although I am still confused how this works, how do you distinguish between percolated surface melt water and subsurface meltwater, or meltwater that has not yet refrozen after a previous melt event?

L85: I am unfamiliar with remote sensing so have no idea what you mean by acquisition capabilities

L86: specify “small scale”

L97: Rephrase to “A dry snowpack has a lower emissivity than a wet snowpack”

Equation 1: Is it epsilon^*, or is * a multiplicator? Anyhow epsilon is not defined in the text.

L108: I don’t understand, what’s “dominant melt”? rephrase

L111: Please group the three satellite production per subsection.

L143: “pixel-wise”? huh? Typo?

Figures 2-4: Is there a way to combine these in one graph, or something? They seem rather obsolete to this study (using 3 figures to show something that’s not main result of the paper).

Section 2.3.1: So, what threshold do you finally chose? This is unclear.

L235: It’s unclear for me what you are presenting here. Are you evaluation your melt assimilation simulations, or are you repeating evaluations from previous studies? It the latter, this entire paragraph is obsolete.

Section 3: The evaluation should be more detailed. AWS observations exist that are used in a SEB model so explicitly calculate melt. This can be perfectly used to evaluate the model, especially the later sensitivity experiments, and assess the models performance in simulating surface melt production. See for instance Jakobs et al., 2020.

L280: rephrase.

Results overall: Several sentences in the results section are better suited in the introduction or methods section; please increase the focus of this section on the actual results.

L295: What’s the global zone? And what evolution?

Section 4.1: This section is completely unclear to me and contains several unphysical explanations (e.g. a cold snowpack producing melt??). And, I don’t understand Figure 10. What are the curves? Not all curves are explained in the legend and as most of them overlap I also can’t distinguish them at all. Improve the figure and try to extend the caption.

L306: the penetration depth of what? Be a bit more explicit.

L311-313: Rephrase. What do you mean here?

L337-338: How is that calculated? As the melt season starts in November of the previous year?

L355- 368: I think this can all be moved to the Methods section (and in fact it already contains several things already introduced in the methods).

L372: is this the sum of three ice shelves, or the whole AP? This is unclear. Also elsewhere in the next paragraphs. Be very consistent with these numbers.

L388: uncomplete sentence.

L390-391: rewrite.

References:

Jakobs, C. L., Reijmer, C. H., Smeets, C. J. P. P., Trusel, L. D., Van De Berg, W. J., Van Den Broeke, M. R., and Van Wessem, J. M. (2020). A benchmark dataset of in situ Antarctic surface melt rates and energy balance. Journal of Glaciology, 66(256), 291–302. doi:10.1017/jog.2020.6. issn:00221430.