Dear authors,

Thank you for your reviewer responses. Please provide a revised manuscript based on the responses you have provided.

All the best
Wesley

Dear authors,
Thank you for your revised manuscript. Although two of the reviewers were quite positive about the changes you have made to the manuscript, after my own review of the manuscript, I believe that there is further work to be done before this manuscript can be considered for publication. Specifically, I find that overall, the structure of the manuscript needs to be improved, the content streamlined and more details about the decisions made in the methodology section need to be robustly described. There are certainly some interesting results presented in this work; however it is hampered by poor articulation and organization in many sections of the manuscript. Content is sometimes presented twice, or at least mentioned twice, and this needs to be addressed. Furthermore, in the methods section, you often note the parameter values chosen in the work but provide little (if any) justification as to why you selected these values. This also needs to be addressed. It may be beneficial to change this manuscript from a research article to a communication. At present, what you are essentially presenting is how this work improves surge characterization from previous elevation change detection work (largely Hugonnet et al., 2021). This is not a problem, but I see this more as an iteration on that work, than something that is wholly separate from that work. Throughout the manuscript, there is a great use of colons to connect thoughts/sentences, but the structure does not really work. Please review the manuscript, check for these instances and revise as needed.

Overall, I believe that there are some interesting results presented in this research, however at present, the content is a bit too muddled for these results to be fully appreciated by the reader. I would encourage the authors to go back through the entire manuscript and in detail revise the entire manuscript for clarity and seek opportunities to shorten content and reduce redundancy in the text. Please also address the lack of details in the methodology section and related to this point, I still believe that the uncertainty could be further elucidated within the text. Below, I have provided an non-exhaustive list of detailed changes that should help with the revision.
All the best,
Wesley Van Wychen

L19: please put surge type in quotation marks
L22-23: ‘and this subject continues to be the subjects of developments and theories’  this is awkwardly phrase, please have a look and revise.
L32: This first sentence is not really necessary.
L25-26: you should mention here the different ‘states’, whether they be mass build up related to quiescence in a reservoir area, mass transfer during a surge etc.
L26: ‘it permits one to’
L27: ‘along with’ change to ‘and determine’
L28: an information --> information
L31: at ‘Remote sensing…’ this should be the start of a new paragraph.
L31: ‘permits one to’
L33: along time --> over time
L36: Surges are short-term events --> This depends on how you define short, we have observations that surges may last decades, see examples in the Canadian Arctic.
L40-41: end of sentence, change to ‘long enough to capture a number of surge events in their entirety’.
L41; ‘altimetry missions’
L41: such as ICESat-2, CryoSat-2 etc. --> are there really many more than this to warrant etc?
L42: but ‘their spatial sparsity’ change to ‘their limited spatial sampling’
L43: ‘several studies have used dense SAR time series on surge case studies, usually without time series filtering technique’ --> this is unclear. Do they use DEMs derived from SAR data to do the analysis or backscatter analysis. At the moment, it is not clear how this statement connects to the previous sentences.
L48-49: revise to ‘elevation precisions of a similar magnitude’. Also, here do you mean elevation precision of 15 m?
L49: and sometimes large artefacts caused by clouds, jitter, lack of stereo correlation on saturated/textureless terrain.
L51-52: these sentences can be combined and should be revised a bit.
L52: Also, the volume transported or slope should be computed at consistent dates across a whole glacier. --> for what reason? This is a bit of a sentence fragment at the moment.
L53: At ‘Various’ start a new paragraph
L61-62: sentence needs more revision here.
L65: In this study we aim at developing --> In this study we develop a workflow
L66 dataset or datasets?
L68-69: “We apply it to an ASTER DEM dataset from Hugonnet et al. (2021). We produce a regional dataset in the Karakoram region covering more than 100 surge-type glaciers.”  “We apply it to an ASTER DEM dataset from Hugonnet et al. (2021) to produce a regional dataset in the Karakoram region covering more than 100 surge-type glaciers.’
L70: ‘We also compare the surge characteristics such as volumes transferred to other products and studies.’ Please list some of the other products and studies here’
L75: 8. 6% I assume this is meant to be 8.6%?
L76: Guillet et al. (2022) identified 223 surge-type glaciers among glaciers larger than 5 km2 (not individualizing tributaries) --> Guillet et al. (2022) identified 223 surge-type glaciers larger than 5 km2 not individualizing tributaries.
L76-77: these studies or this study? Are you referring to both studies above in this paragraph, or just the Guillet et al., (2022) in this instance. If just Guillet et al., (2022), then revise to this study.
L78-79: We use the DEMs produced in the global study of Hugonnet et al. (2021), which ranged from 07/2000 to 09/2019 in the Karakoram. They are generated from satellite images of the ASTER sensor. Revise to: ‘We use the DEMs produced in the global study of Hugonnet et al. (2021), which ranged from 07/2000 to 09/2019 in the Karakoram and were generated from satellite images from the ASTER sensor.’
L84/ L93-94: Can the information about the Copernicus DEM all be presented at the same time that it is mentioned at L84? Also, please revise these sentences, there are some fragments here that could be improved. Here, you also discuss the impact of radar penetration, but no context is given about this topic, please add a sentence to provide some context here about why radar penetration is a factor to consider.
L96: ‘We aim to develop’ --> this statement is a bit tentative, you either have or you haven’t developed this. So, I would suggest that you change this to: “Here we present a workflow to ….”
L95-100: So, is the major difference here in the methodology, just your pre-processing steps from what is presented in Hugonnet et al., (2021)?
L101: There is some redundancy in this first bullet point.
L109: Here you mention that the LOWESS sequence will be described in detail later, but you have already mentioned earlier in the manuscript that it will be described in subsection 3.2. This should be revised and harmonized.
L110: There are quite a few fragments here, that could be revised and included in a single sentence.
L115: can you provide more detail on why you selected the 0.4 and 0.3 values? This really is not detailed sufficiently enough.
L116: again, please provide a rationale for the choice of 2.
L117-118: again, please provide greater rationale for the choice of ‘symettric’
L128: what constitutes ‘worse’ in this case?
L133: abbreviation needs to come after the fully detailed title.
L138: drive what over-fitting behaviour? Any over-fitting behaviour?
L142: GCV metric….. --> this sentence is awkward and is in need of some revision.
L150: The same ALPS-REML code as what? Again, please provide more detailed rationalization of the parameters you set.
L189: in metres?
L 191: elevation change uncertainty --> but what is this value? It seems under described this far in the manuscript.
L230: fewer points?
L255: in Figure 6.a2
L289-291: Okay, but you have a difference of 687 +/- 414 x 106 m3, so what happened to this ice?
L302: wuth --> with
In the results section, please create subsections for each individual glacier surge event: Hispar, Khurdopin, Kyagar and Yazghil, this will help with organization of the text.
L330: uncertainty representation. This should be moved to the methods section, it also seems confusing that this is mentioned after the reader would have accessed these figures.
L337-339: is it possible that areas of large difference is simply due to imperfect comparisons made in areas of very steep terrain where we might expect large differences over short distances?
L338-339: Please revise this sentence, how is a wrong estimate credible?
L340: What is meant by moderate? Please be more quantitative in the description.
L341: is of -4.3 m --> is -4.3 m
L342: 2015-10-13, -5.2 m --> this section of the sentence needs revision.
L350-353: end of paragraph needs revision for clarity.
L355: why 450 days? This should be specified.
L358: larger for larger --> larger for longer
L359: Case b) is specific --> it is unclear what is being referred to here.
L370: may not permit to observe this phenomena --> may not allow this phenomena to be observed
L381-383: this was discussed earlier in the manuscript, correct? Why not just make sure that everything is described once collectively.
L386-387: it is not clear to me how the reader is meant to understand the information in this sentence.
L402: period misplaced after (2018).
L404: Is the information here from the Steiner et al., (2018) or from the personal communication?

I thank the authors for their revisions and attention to the manuscript. I am happy to recommend this for publication.