Title: Snow accumulation rates at Concordia Station, Antarctica, observed by stake farms

Author(s): Claudio Stefanini and others

General comments

   This manuscript presents scientific data on snow accumulation at Concordia Station, Antarctica, collected by stake farms from 2004 to 2024. They reveal the SMB at the site, which is new data. Therefore, this manuscript is worthy of publication. However, I found several issues in this manuscript.     

Specific comments

1. Snow density for SMB calculations, Lines 53−56 and Line 178

Two densities are introduced to calculate the SMB from stake data in previous studies: upper 2 m by Takahashi et al. (1994) and surface to the bottom of the annual snow layer by Kameda et al. (1997) and Satow et al. (1999) in Lines 53–55.

As briefly described in Line 178, Takahashi and Kameda (2007) first propose that the appropriate snow density for SMB from stake data is the mean snow density at the stake base during the snow stake measurement period, which is the snow density for SMB considering snow compaction. Kameda et al. (2008) used the density for SMB calculations at Dome Fuji. Thus, it is better to add Takahashi and Kameda (2007) and Kameda et al. (2008) at Line 54, immediately preceding Ekaykin et al. (2020).

2. Lines 156–157

The first paper to consider snow density in relation to snow compaction during stake measurements is Takahashi and Kameda (2007). Thus, after line 157, it would be better to add this paper for reference.

3. Line 163

I think “hundreds of meters” from the surface is ice, not snow. I think the deepest snow (permeable material) at Dome C is around 100 m, not “hundreds of meters”.

4. Line 178

Takahashi et al (2007)  ->  Takahashi and Kameda (2007)

5. SMB (cm) in Fig. 4, 5, 7a, 7b, 8

The y-axes of these figures are SMB (cm).  Is it a water equivalent value or a snow equivalent value?

To eliminate misunderstandings, the term “surface mass balance (SMB)” is often used in previous papers. The unit of SMB is kg m-2 a-1. If you use the unit in the y-axis in these figures, it is clear that the value is the same as mm in water equivalent.

6. Line 260

What is +26.6 %%? I think a "%" should be omitted.

7. Line 240.

Is the p-value of 0.40 correct?

8. Line 378

I think “erosion” is a more appropriate term than “ablation”, because there is no water at Dome C even in the summer season.

9. Line 379

Kameda et al. (2008) used “the negative and zero SMB” for expressing the condition. Please consider using this term to express the same phenomenon.

10. Lines 384–387

It is better to add figures to express the relation described in the text.

11. Line 399

Fujii and Kusunoki (1982) and Takahashi et al (1992) will be good references for sublimation at the snow surface at the Antarctic ice sheet.

Please consider to add these papers for reference.

   Fujii, Y., and K. Kusunoki (1982), The role of sublimation and condensation in the formation of ice sheet surface at Mizuho Station, Antarctica,  

        J. Geophys. Res., 87(C6), 4293–4300, doi:10.1029/JC087iC06p04293.

  Takahashi, S. Endoh, T., Azuma, N. and Meshida, S (1992): Bare ice fields developed in the inland part of the Antarctica. Proc. NIPR Symp.         

        Polar  Meteorology and Glaciology, 5, 128-139.

Best regards,

Takao Kameda

This paper deals with snow accumulation data provided by several stake farms distributed around Dome C. This is probably one of the sites located in the inner East Antarctic Ice Sheet which is most studied from this point of view. With many data available from ice cores, geophysical prospecting, and previous studies on stake farms. From this point of view the site is thus extremely important  in the field of Inner Antarctica snow accumulation estimation.

The authors present new data returned from novel stake farms that have been monitored in the last years. The core of the study is the comparison between these new farms and previous ones, including a comparison with data derived from reanalyses and models.

Notable discrepancies are noted among the different farms which cannot be related to the well-known precipitation gradient that characterizes the Dome C area. Several hypotheses are made to explain such differences and in the end the explanation provided by the author is that several processes are responsible for the variability observed in the data. The existence of the cited gradient, the different size of the farms (with impacts on uncertainties and variability of annual data), the effect of buildings on snow accumulation/erosion.

In general the paper is well written, it is scientifically solid and the data are carefully analyzed and interpreted. I would probably suggest to deepen a little bit the part where reanalyses -derived data are described. Considering the peculiar features of the site, it is not clear how the authors calculated snow deposition, erosion, sublimation using reanalyses data. Please provide more information on this.

My second concern, which is the most notable one, is about the general “story” behind the manuscript. The current title is “Snow accumulation rates at Concordia Station, Antarctica, observed by stake farms”. Reading this title and the general structure of the paper, in particular the introduction, one can think that the key message of the present work is to provide new estimate for snow annual accumulation for an important site of inner East Antarctica. This is only partially true in my opinion. The main argument of this work is to discuss in details the parameters which can influence the estimation of snow accumulation using multiple stake farms distributed around a single site. This is now not clear, in particular if a reader only focuses on the title/abstract and introduction. I suggest to the author to change a bit these key elements of the manuscript, focusing more on the parameters which introduce variability in data gathered from stake farms. Adopting a title like “On the factors which influence the estimation of snow accumulation rates at a site in inner East Antarctica: lessons learned at Dome C”, would surely help the readers to understand what they will find in this nice and detailed manuscript. Of course changing the title and in general the “scientific narrative”, it would be needed to change also some other parts of the manuscript, in particular the introduction.

Line 15-20: I don’t think it is necessary to provide such detailed information about the stake farm position in the abstract. There is the materials section for this. I would just say that in this work you are going to compare results from the different available farms around Dome C, providing some basic data about the temporal interval which is considered here.

Line 35: “for understanding”?

Thanks for your attention