Post-Little Ice Age Glacier Recession in the North-Chuya Ridge and Dynamics of the Bolshoi Maashei Glacier, Altai
, Dmitry Bantcev 1, Ekaterina Derkach 1, Anna Agatova 2, Roman Nepop 2, Semyon Griga 1, Valeria Rasputina 1, Oleg Ostanin 3, Galina Dyakova 3, Galina Pryakhina 1, Kirill Chistyakov 1, Yuri Kurochkin 1 and Yuliya Gorbunova 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, the remote sensing and in-situ study of the Bolshoi Maasei Glacier has been carried out, and the retreat of the glaciers in the northern part of the Altai Chuya Mountains after the maximum value of LIA has been estimated.
General Comments
1) The font on the picture is not readable. e.g. Figure 1, 2, 6
2) The line spacing in the formula is incorrect, e.g. formula 4, 8
1) Is LIA Little Ice Age? The first occurrence should be explained.
2) Line 207 has no punctuation
3) Line 816 July 14 -, 36.7 mm has more ','
4) Is there any evidence for assuming that the error of Line 148 does not exceed 0.5 m and how to estimate 0.5 m?
5) In line 192, How to change the image resolution from 30 × 30 to 15 × 15 m, is resampling adopted? Is the resolution of the processed result really improved?
6) How to calculate the vertical diapason in Table 5?
7) I'm curious about 848 lines. How do you decode Landsat 7 images with relatively low resolution?
8) The font on the picture is not readable. e.g. Figure 1, 2, 6
9) The line spacing in the formula is incorrect, e.g. formula 4, 8
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! Thank you very much for your valuable remarks. We tried to improve the manuscript according to your suggestions
Here are some comments on the parts of your review and our improvements.
General Comments
1) The font on the picture is not readable. e.g. Figure 1, 2, 6
2) The line spacing in the formula is incorrect, e.g. formula 4, 8 - Done
1) Is LIA Little Ice Age? The first occurrence should be explained. Done.
2) Line 207 has no punctuation. Done.
3) Line 816 July 14 -, 36.7 mm has more ',' Done
4) Is there any evidence for assuming that the error of Line 148 does not exceed 0.5 m and how to estimate 0.5 m? – We took repeated measurements while revealing the distance between the new benchmark, that we established and the glacier and the difference did not exceed 0.5 meters. But we cannot use directly that error for the observations done by other scientists before.
5) In line 192, How to change the image resolution from 30 × 30 to 15 × 15 m, is resampling adopted? Is the resolution of the processed result really improved?
Pan-sharpening is combining the geometric details of a high-resolution panchromatic image (15 m, band 8) and the color information of a low-resolution multispectral image to produce a high-resolution multispectral image. As a result, the image obtained has 15 m resolution.
6) How to calculate the vertical diapason in Table 5? This is the difference between Z2 - height of the upper point of the glacier and Z1 - height of the lower point of the glacier, m.
7) I'm curious about 848 lines. How do you decode Landsat 7 images with relatively low resolution?
848 line was about the imagery used by other authors for the estimation of Altai glaciers (tab. 10). However, we found a mistake – those authors used ASTER images. Corrected.
8) The font on the picture is not readable. e.g. Figure 1, 2, 6 Figures corrected
9) The line spacing in the formula is incorrect, e.g. formula 4, 8 Done
Reviewer 2 Report
General assessment:
The authors provide a classic remote sensing study on glacier changes over several time steps. Moreover, they apply well-known (at least in Russia and the FSU) empiric formulae to calculate parameters such as ELA or mass balance (index). The validity of such approaches, relying on meteorological data from quite distant stations could be questioned, but since there are no closer stations and since this methodology is well-established and therefore comparable, I believe that is has its justification. Neither the methodology nor the results are innovative or surprising. However, the results have scientific value, because they are from an underreported region.
One problem of the manuscript is its length and its language. It is in some parts awkwardly formulated and needs rewording and shortening. This process should be accompanied by a native speaker. I see the greatest potential for shortening in the chapters 3.1., 3.2. (maybe Table 2 in supplementary material; also the Kurowski method requires a lot of space), 4.2. (the topographic description of the individual branches), Fig. 16 can be deleted, 5. (the comparison with other mountain ranges, focus on the most important ones and make it short).
Another problem is the artwork, especially the maps. They are of poor quality and miss some general cartographic rules.
Major remarks:
Figure 1: this figure is of very poor quality, it is not readable and the source of image is not given!
Figure 2: also of insufficient quality. The resolution is not good enough, the labels of the rivers are hard to read, because they are placed ON the rivers, the colours for the altitude belts are not distinguishable, no source for the spatial information is given. Moreover, it would be very helpful to see the glacier outlines on this map!
Figure 4: image resolution is not sufficient
Tables 5, 6, 7: these tables are far too long to appear in the text, they belong to the supplementary material! You can consider making short tables for the text with mean values for the river basins (which are already mentioned in the tables) and shift the individual glaciers into the supplement.
Figure 6: image cannot be accepted in this way (resolution, river labelling). The legend must say “glacier area” instead of “glacial reduction”. Better divide into 3 figures!
Fig. 11. Again a poor map. It is so easy to create appealing maps using GIS, please make use of it. There are rules for maps, for example that the orientation should be recognizable (insert a north arrow, also in your other maps!). There are rules how contour lines should be labelled: the numbers should stand in direction of rising topography (which means upside down for the 2600 m label, for example). Localities which are mentioned in the text (e.g. Mount Maashei-Bash) should also be shown on the map!
Minor remarks:
Always say “m a.s.l.” if you mean the altitude above sea level.
138-140: it seems strange that a halting of the retreat took place in single years… does it mean the glacier andvanced in these years? This also does not match with the mass balances reported to WGMS(https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/836c66d14c8b410f940355056ddb1bf8).
140: please name it “Maliy Aktru”, so it corresponds with the usual transcription.
141: use a consistent way to mention the scientists (B.V. Tronov or Boris Tronov, see line 112).
207-212: this paragraph belongs to the results section
234/235: from which year is the SRTM DEM? Around 2000? Wouldn´t it better to use a more recent elevation model? If not, authors should explain why they prefer subrecent elevation data.
374-385: this paragraph is a bit hard to understand, please reformulate more concisely (and precisely).
389: instead of “empirical relatioships/dependencies”, the method is more commonly named “area-volume scaling”
502: (and subsequently for the other time periods): better give % per year
504: disappeared completely
504: 6.9 km³ is not 58% of 15.5 km³
525-526: the relative indicators indicate an increase (of the decrease), not a slowdown! This does not correspond with what was said shortly before.
Table 8: there should be consequently a minus, if the number shows a reduction (both in the absolute values and in the percentage)
563: do you mean “greatest reduction by number”? This is at least what is displayed in Figure 7! (not the area)
578: A possible reason for what? For the lesser retreat on the northern slopes? I think the meteorological data of a (distant) station can only explain the general retreat, but not aspect differences. Please clarify or reword.
Figure 8: axis label partly in cyrillic!
Figure 9: show linear trends and also mention them in the text.
Figure 10: I doubt if the extension of the meteo data back to 1838 brings very new insights. As fas as I am concerned, it could be deleted. If you think this is important, you should explain in more detail how the correlation and extrapolation was done.
603-604: “it was most pronounced during the last 30–40 years”: I wouldn´t agree, instead there seems to be a decrease from 1890 to 1912…
Figure 12: maybe insert an arrow which points at the moraine and name the photographer
663: name the data source: Corona image analysis?
689-690: this is not a real explanation (like: the decrease is caused by the absence of an increase). I think the reason could probably lie in the topography (area-altitude distribution): Did the ELA shift from 200-2022 maybe affect (steeper and therefore) smaller areas compared to the previous time step?
696-710: I am not sure if the description of debris cover is useful in this level of detail, at least without showing an image where the reader can follow. I suggest to either shorten the description or to insert a high resolution satellite image (World imagery?).
731-735: I do not understand why small differences between 1924-1932 and 1850-1924 (I assume this is what you mean) support the results for the earlier period. Please explain.
780: can you prove this statement by numbers or a citation?
781: I do not think that rainfall increases melt drastically (there are many papers which show that it is not the case). A combination of high melt rates and heavy rainfalls can lead to a rapid influx….
835: name it “Discussion and Conclusions” and insert some real conclusions (e.g. further research, outlook,…) or divide it into 2 chapters.
846-843 plus Table 10: should be shifted to the results section.
921-923: there are mass balance observations made by the traditional glaciological method for Maliy Aktru (https://wgms.ch/ggcb/), you shoud mention and show them. There is not only a vague increase in volume, but a mass balance value available for every year (and many of them are indeed positive in the years before 1990).
The Discussion section is too long. It is correct to compare the own results with those from neighbouring regions, but this could also be done in a more concise way.
Language corrections (the most necessary, this is not a complete list!)
Title: “Post-Little-Ice Age glacier recession in the North Chuya Ridge and dynamics of the Bolshoi Maashei glacier, Altai” (it is better to not use abbreviations [LIA] in the title)
15: explain ”LIA” when it is mentioned the first time
16: better „ELA rise“ instead of elevation
19: …and by the decrease of….
21: From the LIA maximum extent to 2022, the Bolshoy Maashei glacier decreased…..
23: in 2010-2022 with 14 m a-1 on average
25: tend- : please delete the “-“. Better “Strong melt rates” instead of “High glacier melting”
26: delete “could”, better: failure instead of breakthrough
38: …the water supply of arid regions…
47: better “also present” instead of “well pronounced”
54: delete the first “LIA”
55: please use a consistent name of the glacier (Maasei/Maashei)
56: and to identify
70: better “larger extent” instead of “more powerful development”
80: use colons instead of minuses, e.g. Aktru: 4044 m a.s.l.
102: better “suggest” instead of “makes it possible”
103: precipitation instead of pluviometric
105: delete “at the level of 2600 m” (you provide this information shortly before)
106: (1921-1961)
106: define “summer” (e.g. May-Sep)
107: point instead of comma after mm
120: “updated for 2003” instead of “corrected and renewed for the 2003”
125: rock glacier instead of stone glacier
136: from its 1835 position
151: better difficult accessibility instead of relative inaccessibility
155: better climatic snowline instead of snow boundary height
157: …did GPS tracking…. geodetically surveyed the….
158: by measuring tape and by GPS
161: better: which complicates the measurement of retreat.
170: better “geomorphologicsl features” instead of “forms of relief”
174: we chose images from the end of the ablation….
178: For creating the present glaciers inventory and reconstruction of LIA glaciers, we used a Sentinel-2 image and for the reconstruction of the glaciers in 2000 we used a Landsat 7 image (Table 1).
192: 30 m to 15 m. employing ESRI ArcGIS 10.4
Table 3, ln. 288: “extent” instead of “diapasone”!
419: delete “- potential water reserves“
449: ELA
506: ELA in 2000 was reached 3074 m (165 m riuse since
572: delete “and their changes” (otherwise one could think that numbers represent changes)
588: delete “the head of”
612: everywhere? Maybe better: is visible in all records
612: specify which years you mean exactly by “the last 20”
627: “with at present it was”? which is at present?
629: “from 3000 to 2900 m to about 300 m. northern, here it occupied an other circus”. There is something wrong with this sentence (not only that you probably mean cirque instead of circus). I am not sure if this whole topographic description is necessary at all (delete or at least shorten)
633: start sentence with capital letter
637: it is only a circus if there are clowns ;-)
694: “for about 3 km 900 m”? Do you mean 3.9 km?
700: delete “them”
701: delete “them”
711: glacial stream flowing in the stone-ice shores… it is difficult to generate this picture without ever having seen it, maybe delete this.
716: its thickness obviously decreases to zero at the marginal parts. Better delete this “visual” part of the sentence.
763: I don´t understand the “if” in this sentence
778: delete “of the Maasheisky glacier (about 7.25 km long, most of which - almost 4 km - located below the ELA)”
797 ff.: in English, you don´t use the “-“ in this sense (e.g. width - 425 m), you use “:” or you integrate it into the text. And it is always “m”, not “м”.
804: water-stone mudflow: maybe it was a “debris flow”?
807: by 2-4°C. (is it not possible to mention more precisely? The other temperatures are given with two decimal points, if there are measurements, the exact values for June and July should be available).
844-850: I do not properly understand this sentence, please reword.
873: twice as high
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! Thank you very much for your valuable remarks. We tried to improve the manuscript according to your suggestions
Here are some comments on the parts of your review and our improvements (in bold).
Figure 1: this figure is of very poor quality, it is not readable and the source of image is not given! Improved.
Figure 2: also of insufficient quality. The resolution is not good enough, the labels of the rivers are hard to read, because they are placed ON the rivers, the colours for the altitude belts are not distinguishable, no source for the spatial information is given. Moreover, it would be very helpful to see the glacier outlines on this map! – Improved.
Figure 4: image resolution is not sufficient Answer: resolution is 300 dpi that seems enough
Tables 5, 6, 7: these tables are far too long to appear in the text, they belong to the supplementary material! You can consider making short tables for the text with mean values for the river basins (which are already mentioned in the tables) and shift the individual glaciers into the supplement.- Done
Figure 6: image cannot be accepted in this way (resolution, river labelling). The legend must say “glacier area” instead of “glacial reduction”. Better divide into 3 figures! Corrected.
Fig. 11. Again a poor map. It is so easy to create appealing maps using GIS, please make use of it. There are rules for maps, for example that the orientation should be recognizable (insert a north arrow, also in your other maps!). There are rules how contour lines should be labelled: the numbers should stand in direction of rising topography (which means upside down for the 2600 m label, for example). Localities which are mentioned in the text (e.g. Mount Maashei-Bash) should also be shown on the map!
Map corrected
Minor remarks:
Always say “m a.s.l.” if you mean the altitude above sea level.- Done
138-140: it seems strange that a halting of the retreat took place in single years… does it mean the glacier andvanced in these years? This also does not match with the mass balances reported to WGMS(https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/836c66d14c8b410f940355056ddb1bf8).
Answer: Here is the exact citation from [Narozhnyj, Ju.K. Resursnaja Ocenka i Tendencii Izmenenija Lednikov v Bassejne Aktru (Altaj) Za Poslednie 1054 Poltora Stoletija. Resource Assessment and Trends in Glacier Change in the Aktru Basin (Altai) over the Past Century and a Half. Data of Glaciological studies 2001, 90, 117-125 (in Russian).]: Against the background of the general degradation of glaciation, there are separate periods of stationing and even a slight advance of glaciers. Thus, movements of the following glaciers in the basin were recorded only instrumentally: Small Aktru in 1911 (V.V. Sapozhnikov), 1936 (M.V. Tronov), 1960 and 1966 (I.Ya. Oleinik), 1993 ( a movement of 9 m was also noted in the spring of 1979); Right Aktru in 1936 and 1940 (M.V. Tronov), 1969 (M.A. Dushkin), 1993; Vodopadny in 1978, 1986 and 1993 The year 1993 draws attention, when glacier movements were recorded not only in the Aktru basin, but also in many other Altai glaciers…
Variations in glacier fronts in specific years do not necessarily have to coincide with the sign of the mass balance and may lag significantly in relation to the change in the mass balance. However, according to measurements there were years with positive mass balance for the Maliy Aktru glacier (figure below), especially between 1965 and 1995, so in our opinion it is nothing strange that the glacier started to advance in some years.
140: please name it “Maliy Aktru”, so it corresponds with the usual transcription. Answer: done
141: use a consistent way to mention the scientists (B.V. Tronov or Boris Tronov, see line 112). Answer: done
207-212: this paragraph belongs to the results section Answer: done
234/235: from which year is the SRTM DEM? Around 2000? Wouldn´t it better to use a more recent elevation model? If not, authors should explain why they prefer subrecent elevation data.
Answer: Since our article reconstructs the state of glaciers for the year 2000 and the maximum of LIA, the use of SRTM DEM (around 2000) makes it possible to better match the altitudes of that time points. The use of more modern DEM for glaciers in 2021 would not allow obtaining comparable data for all three time points, such a comparison is possible provided that the data obtained are homogeneous. In addition, our experience of field work in the Altai Mountains showed that the SRTM data most closely correspond to the heights obtained in field studies using GPS.
374-385: this paragraph is a bit hard to understand, please reformulate more concisely (and precisely).- Answer: rewritten
389: instead of “empirical relatioships/dependencies”, the method is more commonly named “area-volume scaling” – Answer: corrected
502: (and subsequently for the other time periods): better give % per year Answer: done.
504: disappeared completely Answer: corrected
504: 6.9 km³ is not 58% of 15.5 km³ Corrected: (55.5% decrease)
525-526: the relative indicators indicate an increase (of the decrease), not a slowdown! This does not correspond with what was said shortly before.
Corrected: Despite the decrease in the absolute values of the reduction in the area of glaciers, their relative reduction accelerated: 0.36% decrease of the area per year in 1850-2000, 0.69% decrease of the area per year in 2000-2021.
Table 8: there should be consequently a minus, if the number shows a reduction (both in the absolute values and in the percentage) Answer: corrected
563: do you mean “greatest reduction by number”? This is at least what is displayed in Figure 7! (not the area) . Answer: no, this is exactly what we meant, as figure 7 is about the areas, not the numbers: Proportion of the total area of the glaciers of different morphological types and their changes from the LIA till 2021.
578: A possible reason for what? For the lesser retreat on the northern slopes? I think the meteorological data of a (distant) station can only explain the general retreat, but not aspect differences. Please clarify or reword.
The difference in glaciation of the northern slopes and southern slopes is associated with differences in the arrival of solar radiation. If degradation occurs mainly on the southern slopes. it is logical to assume that the differences in the arrival of radiation increased. This is possible with an increase in the total amount of radiation due to a decrease in cloudiness, which correlates with a decrease in precipitation. Since the data of the nearest meteorological stations show a long-term trend towards a decrease in precipitation, such a reason for the unequal reduction of glaciers on different slopes seems very likely.
Figure 8: axis label partly in cyrillic! ) Answer: corrected
Figure 9: show linear trends and also mention them in the text. Answer: a linear trend does not reflect multidirectional temperature changes before about 1990 and after 1990, and adding it to the graph will interfere with the perception of the real picture of temperature changes.
Figure 10: I doubt if the extension of the meteo data back to 1838 brings very new insights. As fas as I am concerned, it could be deleted. If you think this is important, you should explain in more detail how the correlation and extrapolation was done.
The extension of the series of summer temperatures at the Kara-Turek meteorological station on the basis of data from the Barnaul meteorological station will make it possible to determine the change in thermal conditions in the area of work starting from the period of the LIA maximum. This, in turn, makes it possible to understand the prerequisites for the uneven reduction of glaciers. Such an approach is justified for summer temperatures due to the stability of temperature fields over time, even in complex terrain. We added the linear dependance formula.
603-604: “it was most pronounced during the last 30–40 years”: I wouldn´t agree, instead there seems to be a decrease from 1890 to 1912…Corrected
Figure 12: maybe insert an arrow which points at the moraine and name the photographer Answer: done.
663: name the data source: Corona image analysis? - Answer: data source (Corona image) is given in Materials and Methods section
689-690: this is not a real explanation (like: the decrease is caused by the absence of an increase). I think the reason could probably lie in the topography (area-altitude distribution): Did the ELA shift from 200-2022 maybe affect (steeper and therefore) smaller areas compared to the previous time step?
- Answer: a more precise expression of thought: at the previous stage, the glacial system disintegrated by detaching glacial flows, which gave a sharp reduction in the area of ​​glaciers, now there is only a retreat of glacial tongues, which gives a slower area of ​​the glacial system. In addition, the West Maashei glacier has retreated inside the cirque, where the steepness of the surrounding slopes provides shading and additional accumulation of avalanche snow on the tongue, which has slowed down its decline.
696-710: I am not sure if the description of debris cover is useful in this level of detail, at least without showing an image where the reader can follow. I suggest to either shorten the description or to insert a high resolution satellite image (World imagery?).
- Answer: A satellite image (Sentinel 2) has been added to fig. 14 (ex. Fig. 11). Also the description has been shortened.
731-735: I do not understand why small differences between 1924-1932 and 1850-1924 (I assume this is what you mean) support the results for the earlier period. Please explain.
Answer: the values obtained by us for 1850-1924 are in good agreement with the low rates of retreat of the glacier established for it for all subsequent periods, with the exception of the last two decades, when it accelerated retreat under the influence of extreme warming.
780: can you prove this statement by numbers or a citation? The ablation period of 2012, when the lake outburst took place, was one of the most negative for the glacier mass balance. According to our calculations, the melting for this period is estimated about 2 m w.e. at the ELA and 4,79 m w.e. on the glacial terminus.
781: I do not think that rainfall increases melt drastically (there are many papers which show that it is not the case). A combination of high melt rates and heavy rainfalls can lead to a rapid influx….
Answer: this part of the text slightly rewritten: The combination of high ablation values and high amounts of liquid precipitation is especially favorable for high runoff. Moreover, ablation can increase when due to heavy rainfalls, which adds up to the already high influx of additional water into the valley. In the presence of dammed lakes in the hydrological system of the valleys, this flow is regulated, however, in the event of the destruction of the dam and/or the over-flow of the lake basin, especially destructive mudflows occur. This is facilitated by the presence of loose material easily transported by water on the bottoms of glacial valleys.
835: name it “Discussion and Conclusions” and insert some real conclusions (e.g. further research, outlook,…) or divide it into 2 chapters.
Answer: Done.
846-843 plus Table 10: should be shifted to the results section. Answer: Table 10 is devoted not to our results of the work, but to the data obtained earlier by other authors and comparison with our data, therefore it is more appropriate in the Discussion section.
921-923: there are mass balance observations made by the traditional glaciological method for Maliy Aktru (https://wgms.ch/ggcb/), you shoud mention and show them. There is not only a vague increase in volume, but a mass balance value available for every year (and many of them are indeed positive in the years before 1990).-Answer: done.
The Discussion section is too long. It is correct to compare the own results with those from neighbouring regions, but this could also be done in a more concise way.
Language corrections (the most necessary, this is not a complete list!)
Title: “Post-Little-Ice Age glacier recession in the North Chuya Ridge and dynamics of the Bolshoi Maashei glacier, Altai” (it is better to not use abbreviations [LIA] in the title) Answer: done.
15: explain ”LIA” when it is mentioned the first time Answer: done.
16: better „ELA rise“ instead of elevation Corrected.
19: …and by the decrease of…. Corrected.
21: From the LIA maximum extent to 2022, the Bolshoy Maashei glacier decreased….. Corrected.
23: in 2010-2022 with 14 m a-1 on average Corrected.
25: tend- : please delete the “-“. Better “Strong melt rates” instead of “High glacier melting” Corrected.
26: delete “could”, better: failure instead of breakthrough Corrected.
38: …the water supply of arid regions… Corrected.
47: better “also present” instead of “well pronounced” Corrected.
54: delete the first “LIA” Corrected.
55: please use a consistent name of the glacier (Maasei/Maashei) Corrected.
56: and to identify Corrected.
70: better “larger extent” instead of “more powerful development” Corrected.
80: use colons instead of minuses, e.g. Aktru: 4044 m a.s.l. ” Corrected.
102: better “suggest” instead of “makes it possible” Corrected.
103: precipitation instead of pluviometric Corrected.
105: delete “at the level of 2600 m” (you provide this information shortly before) Corrected.
106: (1921-1961) Corrected.
106: define “summer” (e.g. May-Sep) Done.
107: point instead of comma after mm Corrected.
120: “updated for 2003” instead of “corrected and renewed for the 2003” Corrected.
125: rock glacier instead of stone glacier Corrected.
136: from its 1835 position Corrected.
151: better difficult accessibility instead of relative inaccessibility Corrected.
155: better climatic snowline instead of snow boundary height Corrected.
157: …did GPS tracking…. geodetically surveyed the…. Corrected.
158: by measuring tape and by GPS Corrected.
161: better: which complicates the measurement of retreat. Done.
170: better “geomorphologicsl features” instead of “forms of relief” Corrected.
174: we chose images from the end of the ablation…. Corrected.
178: For creating the present glaciers inventory and reconstruction of LIA glaciers, we used a Sentinel-2 image and for the reconstruction of the glaciers in 2000 we used a Landsat 7 image (Table 1). Corrected.
192: 30 m to 15 m. employing ESRI ArcGIS 10.4 Corrected.
Table 3, ln. 288: “extent” instead of “diapasone”! Corrected.
419: delete “- potential water reserves“ Corrected.
449: ELA Corrected.
506: ELA in 2000 was reached 3074 m (165 m riuse since Corrected.
572: delete “and their changes” (otherwise one could think that numbers represent changes) Corrected.
588: delete “the head of” Corrected.
612: everywhere? Maybe better: is visible in all records Corrected.
612: specify which years you mean exactly by “the last 20” Done.
627: “with at present it was”? which is at present? Corrected: right under the highest point of the North-Chuya ridge (4177.7 m a.s.l. Mount Maashei-Bash).
629: “from 3000 to 2900 m to about 300 m. northern, here it occupied an other circus”. There is something wrong with this sentence (not only that you probably mean cirque instead of circus). I am not sure if this whole topographic description is necessary at all (delete or at least shorten)
Corrected: The width of the stream was 850-900 m, narrowing at altitudes from 3000 to 2900 m a.s.l. to about 300 m. Further downslope it occupied another circus with a bottom level of approximately 2700-2750 m a.s.l.
633: start sentence with capital letter Corrected.
637: it is only a circus if there are clowns ;-) Corrected.
694: “for about 3 km 900 m”? Do you mean 3.9 km? Yes. Corrected.
700: delete “them” Done
701: delete “them” Done
711: glacial stream flowing in the stone-ice shores… it is difficult to generate this picture without ever having seen it, maybe delete this. Answer: we added a satellite image, fig. 14
716: its thickness obviously decreases to zero at the marginal parts. Better delete this “visual” part of the sentence.
Corrected
763: I don´t understand the “if” in this sentence
Deleted.
778: delete “of the Maasheisky glacier (about 7.25 km long, most of which - almost 4 km - located below the ELA)”
Corrected.
797 ff.: in English, you don´t use the “-“ in this sense (e.g. width - 425 m), you use “:” or you integrate it into the text. And it is always “m”, not “м”.
Corrected.
804: water-stone mudflow: maybe it was a “debris flow”? Corrected
807: by 2-4°C. (is it not possible to mention more precisely? The other temperatures are given with two decimal points, if there are measurements, the exact values for June and July should be available).
The text corrected: The average monthly temperatures in June and July that year exceeded the long-term average by 3.4°and 1.2º, respectively (Kara-Turek station).
844-850: I do not properly understand this sentence, please reword.
Rewritten: Most of the information in Table 10 is given for time points or periods took place many years before 2021. Moreover, most of the data were obtained from field research, interpretation of aerial photographs, in which distortions of the area and shape of glac-iers are inevitable, or ASTER images with a relatively low resolution. This is why the most justified is the comparison of our data with the results of the work on creating a unified catalog of Russian glaciers, where Sentinel-2 images were also used (www.glacrus.ru, [34,72]).
873: twice as high
Corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Although not all of my suggestions were followed, the manuscript was improved substantially.
I would have preferred it if you did not only clarify and explain things in the answers to me, but also in the manuscript. It also would have been very helpful if the changes in the manuscript would have been marked.
Moreover, a stronger shortening of the text would have increased readability.
There are still some small corrections to do (for example explaining abbreviations in all table captions).
However, congratulations to the new version.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! Thank you very much for your valuable remarks. We tried to make further improvements to the manuscript.Here are some comments on the parts of your review and our improvements (in bold).
I would have preferred it if you did not only clarify and explain things in the answers to me, but also in the manuscript. It also would have been very helpful if the changes in the manuscript would have been marked.- We tried to add our explanations each time we gave them as answers to the review. However, we added the information about our choice of DEM and some information about the Malyi Aktru glacier mass balance into the materials and methods section. We tracked all the changes in the manuscript using the word tracking functions.
Moreover, a stronger shortening of the text would have increased readability. Unfortunately we see no potential of further text shortening.
There are still some small corrections to do (for example explaining abbreviations in all table captions).
We did some corrections of the abbreviations. Also we did some more English changes into the text.
