The Formation of an Ice-Contact Proglacial Lake and Its Impact on Glacier Change: A Case Study of the Tanymas Lake and Fedchenko Glacier
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please find my review attached.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Compared to lake-terminating glaciers, they have some special behaviors, but in-depth observation of their formation is still limited, which is crucial for understanding the coupling process between glacial lakes and glaciers. Based on satellite and observational data, the author studied the long-term evolution of lakes and glaciers. Good results have been obtained. In particular, the author mentioned that with the current expansion rate, it is expected that the GLOF risk of the lake will gradually become prominent in the coming decades.
This is an exceptionally well-written response, showcasing a deep understanding and thoughtful analysis of the topic at hand. The author's insights and suggestions are insightful and spot on.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The referencing early in this paper on lake terminating glaciers is quite poor. There is considerable study of their formation going back 50 years, need to cite some of foundational work. There is also recent inventory work that documents the rate of change of lakes with different dam types.
There is considerable velocity, surface elevation and ice thickness data already reported for this glacier that is not utilized in the analysis here, which limits the value of this paper note references [19] and [20]
This glacier has changed little as you note, and also noted in your earlier paper for the entire Pamirs [18]. This lack of change makes it difficult to discern dynamic changes in the glacier.
Longbasba is a poor analog for this lake it is not ice dammed, is in a different climate setting and terminates in a narrow mountain valley. Choose more than lake for comparison and focus on ice dammed lakes.
Until these issues are addressed a detailed comments are not warranted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors presented a study of the long-term evolutions of the Tanymas Lake and Fedchenko Glacier in the West Pamir, and analysed the formation and coupling process between the glacial lake and the glacier in detail. I believe the quality of this manuscript is generally suitable for Remote Sensing, but some issues still need to be addressed before the manuscript could be accepted. Moreover, I think some of the figures should be improved to a minimum resolution of 300 dpi.
Detail comments:
L55: The reference written by Zhang et al. (2021) does not cover the coupling mechanism between the glacial lake and glacier. Please replace Zhang et al. (2021) with Immerzeel et al. (2014) and Song et al. (2017).
L257: You can shift the description of SRTM to the Data Section.
L265: “and thus most of the meltwater…”. We are confused about the correlation between the outlet of the Tanymas Lake and the flow direction of the meltwater from Tanymas-5 Glacier. More information would be nice.
L270: 2018 is not mentioned in Figure 4, please add more information.
L278: Figure 4(a) should be ‘Surface elevation change’.
L334-337: Maybe it’s better to shift the description of the ice mass flux to the Method Section?
L348-352: It’s necessary to add more information and references about the Longbasaba Lake in the Introduction Section, just like the Merzbacher Lake.
Fig 1-6: When you insert an image into Word, it automatically uses the filename in the alt text field. Please remove the ‘alt text’ from the figures.
Fig 2, Fig 4, Fig 6: These figures should be improved to a minimum resolution of 600 dpi, according to MDPI Style Guide.
Fig 4: It is hard to obtain detailed information surrounding the Tanymas Lake from the plot (a) in Figure 4. It would be helpful if you could provide a plot to show annual ice thinning rates surrounding the lake, like Figure 6.
Reference
Immerzeel, W. W., Kraaijenbrink, P. D. A., Shea, J. M., Shrestha, A. B., Pellicciotti, F., Bierkens, M. F. P., and de Jong, S. M.: High-resolution monitoring of Himalayan glacier dynamics using unmanned aerial vehicles, Remote Sensing of Environment, 150, 93-103, 10.1016/j.rse.2014.04.025, 2014.
Song, C., Sheng, Y., Wang, J., Ke, L., Madson, A., and Nie, Y.: Heterogeneous glacial lake changes and links of lake expansions to the rapid thinning of adjacent glacier termini in the Himalayas, Geomorphology, 280, 30-38, 10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.12.002, 2017.
Zhang, G. and Duan, S.: Lakes as sentinels of climate change on the Tibetan Plateau, All Earth, 33, 161-165, 10.1080/27669645.2021.2015870, 2021.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is improved but still is documenting in significant detail a proglacial lake that has changed less than 10% in area, poses no GLOF threat and is not impacting glacier velocity. The paper still lacks any compelling point. The narrative is focussed on making something of the small changes using words like disintegration or massive where those are not accurate. The title suggest changes, that are not backed up by the results of the study. If instead the focus was on the relatively limited changes that would be a more correct assessment. Thi
Specific Comments:
126: At some point quantifying the amount of ice floes would be useful to both demonstrate their ability to contribute to the lake and how important they are for retreat.
194: You indicate the Tanymas Lake is “small” here but say it is largest proglacial lake in Pamir’s earlier, be consistent.
249: How large is this fracture? Massive not a useful term.
256: How long did these ice floes last? What is their volume?
259 and 269: Illustrate very limited change in lake area, which is at odds with some of the statements about terminus collapse etc.
321 and 341: There is not evidence of disintegration of the terminus. If this occurred you would have a substantial lake area change.
336: Conflicting elevations reported-increased elevation above 4500m thinning below 4800 m.
340: How have you determined water recharge dominated by disintegration?
389: This is a limited area loss and in itself does not demonstrate lake impact on glacier. In fact you suggest otherwise later.
397: No velocity impacts of lake on glacier underscores that if lake area does not really change, why would glacier respond.
517: You note GLOF not a threat in this region, which should be noted earlier.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.Author Response File: Author Response.docx
