In case I haven't stated it in my initial review, I should add that I think this is an important paper, and I am comfortable seeing it published. My main concern was language/grammar, but after reading it again, I don't find serious concerns. Considering that a copy-edit process will follow, my concern is alleviated.
There is still a statement which initially triggered my concern about ice (as opposed to snow): "If the cloud reflectivity at 860 nm is below the threshold, an open water surface is assumed. In that case the bi-spectral retrieval following the radiance ratio approach of Werner et al. (2013) is applied."
A simple threshold would essentially flag ice or broken ice as water. On the other hand, the authors clearly state that the study was performed in a region with binary conditions (i.e., either snow cover or completely ice/snow free). In addition to the authors' statements, Figure 10 demonstrates this to some extent. For the purpose of this study, this issue should therefore not be a problem. However, it could make it difficult to apply it to satellite remote sensing. In retrospect, it therefore seems a good decision by the authors to not emphasize this aspect of the study.
I am happy with the manuscript as is and am looking forward to its publication. |