Dear Authors and Colleagues
Thank you for your contributions

thanks for the authors for the replies to the reviews of your paper and for the revision. The overall tendency of the reviews of your paper was positive and your suggestions for the revision are convincing.

As indicated by the reviewers and added by the authors not all lake level data sets refer to the same reference.
The authors state:...For the 12 lakes with Jason data, all water levels were converted into T/P, EGM96, because the Jason-1/2/3 data were used as the baseline … for lakes without Jason data but having Envisat data, the water levels were converted into WGS84, EGM2008 … For lakes without either Jason or Envisat data, Cryosat-2 data were used as the baseline, so water levels for these lakes were converted to WGS84, EGM96…

For publication in ESSD, the authors need to publish a 2nd version of the data set Li et al 2019 in PANGAEA with corrected meta data related to the Geoid.

In addition the data set could be further optimized by changing 0 = optical to 0= Landsat + DEM in the meta data, however, this change in the metadata of 0 = optical to 0= Landsat + DEM is not a requirement.

The term ‘optical water level’ for the Landsat-derived lake area cross referenced with a DEM is not optimally formulated (as data set, in the metadata, subtitles and throughout the text of the manuscript). Already existing formulations of ‘Optical water level’ are referring to in situ optical sensors measurements or remote sensing laser-derived water levels. The authors’ formulation in the title as Landsat derived lake shoreline position is a well-chosen formulation. I recommend of exchanging ‘optical water level throughout the manuscript text, subtitles and graphs with Landsat lake shoreline position, or for a shorter naming in figures with Landsat instead of optical.

The title could be slightly shortened to" high temporal resolution water level and storage change data sets for lakes on the Tibetan Plateau during 2000‒2017 using multiple altimetric missions and Landsat-derived lake shoreline positions "

please provide more details on the sources, here named aviso, NASA, ESA
table 2 is a good opportunity to do this, e.g. add in the table caption or below the link and the date of data access
please provide in the manuscript text the source of the used DEM

Be consistent in naming a specific Landsat mission together with the sensor
e.g., p.4 last paragraph: Landsat 7 add the sensor: Landsat 7 ETM+, Figure 4 Landsat ETM+ add the mission: Landsat 7 ETM+; Figure 5, 9 Landsat OLI add the mission: Landsat 8 OLI, etc.
write out all abbreviations when they appear 1rst time; e.g. p.2. all sensor abbreviation, etc.
p.3 LEGOS, also all space programs, ESA, NASA,…; later in the manuscript new sensors appear ,e.g. p.9 write out UAV and GF-2, e.g. Gaofen-2 (GF-2), China High Resolution Earth Observation System (CHEOS) mission,
if you use abbreviations in a table. e.g. table 2 you can introduce them in the table captions e.g. GDR,
same for abbreviations of methods, please write them out if you name them for the 1rst time, e.g. API

I look forward to your final manuscript,

Best wishes,
Birgit Heim

Dear authors,

Thank you for your revision of the manuscript and the data set published on PANGAEA. There are some minor issues left for revision.

General: throughout the text

• avoid the term ‘study lakes’, you could, e.g., use ‘lakes in this study’ or also often ‘lakes’ would be adequate, for example table 1: N of lakes, instead of N of study lakes
• avoid the term ‘rest lakes’ (e.g. table 1), you could either name them as ‘group of lakes related /derived from xx sensor’ or ‘group of lakes not related to xx sensor’

figure and table captions:
please spell out all abbreviations you use in tables and figures in the respective captions

abstract:
1) recommendation: when you for the first time use Landsat expand it to Landsat satellite data
2) typo: The resulting merged Landsat-derivedl
3) this sentence remains unclear: ‘consistent with the theoretical analysis’ – for the abstract in general: as your conclusions are strong and well formulated, please check if eventually you could use more of the content in your conclusions for the abstract

Table 3 change figure caption to Summary of regression analyses and hypsometric function by lake

Figure 4) (b) ROI (yellow area) selected from a Landsat 7 ETM+ image for detecting changes in lake shoreline and the gaps (black areas) – this statement remains unclear – how can you detect change in the areas of data gaps?

PANGAEA data publication
We ask for the accuracy of decimal degree coordinates with at least 4 digits. Your published data set has an accuracy of decimal degree coordinates with 2 digits only. Please change your data publication accordingly.

kind regards
Birgit Heim

Dear Authors

thank you for the last minor corrections in your ESSD manuscript and PANGAEA data publication
It is an interesting dataset and manuscript and we are delighted to inform you that your manuscript is accepted

best regards, Birgit Heim