Dear Authors,

thank you for submitting a substantially revised version that addresses many of the reviewer's concerns. I agree with the reviewer's judgment that this is a substantial piece of work worthy of publication in ESSD. Please submit another revised version, taking into account the minor suggestions from both reviewers.

I will then read through it once more and see if I can find more improvements.

Kind regards, Reinhard Drews

P.S. Figs 1 and 6 need spatial scalebars.

Dear authors,

Thank you for providing a detailed revision accompanied by a detailed response-to-reviews. This makes the review process from an editorial point-of-view much easier. I also complement you for providing the code alongside the data product + extra code to access the data efficiently. I hope that other papers will pick up on this high standard in the future.

Both reviewers have indicated that this paper is ready for publication in ESSD, and I do follow their recommendation. Congratulations for a rigorous paper that will hopefully be picked up by the larger community researching Greenland.

Below, I have some minor additional comments that you may want to consider during typesetting.

Kind regards, Reinhard Drews


Avoid line breaks between numbers and units (e.g. p1/l5) with “100~m” instead of “100 m”.

P3/l59 What is this uncertainty based on? (Alternatively, provide cross-link to section 4.3.3)

State somewhere in the MS that elevation is referenced to “sea level” throughout (and not, for example, WGS84).

Figs 8, 9 – 17 add spatial scalebar in (a). Consider increasing line thickness (particularly the blue line is sometimes hard to see).

Figs 9 – 17: consider removing the x-axis (which is same as in d). This may add some clarity and reduce confusion from some data points below the x-axis (e.g. Fig 12)

Fig 18 is “Frequency” the correct y-label? I would feel better with “counts” or something like that. Frequency, at least for me, should have units of “Hz”.

Reconsider the wording of “resolution” in conclusion and elsewhere. For example, the 100 m gridding of the ArcticDEM was a choice of the gridding algorithm and may or may not reflect the “spatial resolution” of the sensor applied. Often, I think, the word “gridding” is more adequate, but I leave this open to the authors.

Acknowledgements: Consider thanking the reviewers. I think they did a commendable job.