Dear Drs. AlRahman AlMomani and Bollt,

the new version of the mss is considerably improved and I see that the scientific issues
have been addressed. There are, nevertheless, major editorial issues to address.
I will be recommending a "major revision" however I will not require the referees to
reconsider the revised paper. I will be expecting, however, that the editorial issues
I will raise in what follows be fully addressed:

Abstract: A major rewrite.

it states that it that the methodology is "introduces...new" yet there's a reference to published work in which the method is developed. It is thus not new.

"Our approach adopts...considering..." I am not sure "considering" is the right word...

"We generally apply" as opposed to specifically apply??

"(post-cast) predict" do you mean forecast?

"We can do so months earlier before" rewrite

Introduction: A major rewrite.

The discussion on warming is not properly framing either the problem you wish to consider or how warming and calving and other fracture events connect with each other. I think you are trying to say that with warming there are more sheet-cracking events...
but the reader is left with the question: 'I can see how warming might have something to do with cracking' but is this fundamental to the methodology to be presented? is warming a requisite for the methodology to be applicable?



"Still, this contribution..." I don't understand the use of "Still"
Reference to calving and the change in the 21st century?

l26-31 "Most of Antarctica...dramatic warming" then it says that it has warmed 2.5degC...in my book this is dramatic, is it not?

l32 "probably due to" either it is or not or there's contradicting or incomplete evidence for this...as it reads, it sounds like it is your opinion.

l39 0.1degC/decade is big (See above)

Finally when it gets to methodologies it mentions interferometry...fine, what's wrong with this method? instead of stating you need to contrast your method with interferometry, why don't you actually contrast them? and further, can't you construct an extrapolation based upon interferometric data to suggest what happens next?

Section 2

showed "high perfomance in successfully detecting" meaning what? less false positives, more positives, etc? how was this vetted? and what are "fluidic systems" (and do fluids have cracks, are we talking about multiphase flow?)

l 91 "what inderlies a notion...we must undertand directionality" this sentence is muddled

'The rest of this section needs a serious, sentence by sentence analysis and revamping so that the grammar is up to basic standards for publication. In fact, the whole paper needs this treatment.

how are you quantifying color and what is the resolution? Cal S and Cal C could be radically different in sizes, so there must be some sort of normalization...is there?
The parameter alpha also has to be accounted for in this regard.

Section 3

The results have very little by way of quantitative analysis. You declare the method superior, but I do not see evidence for this, or it is rather circumstantial, at best.
If this section had more compelling outcomes the reader might be incentivized to try it.

There's a serious missed opportunity to discuss the color issue. Surely, there are "better" color than others. In any event, I am not expecting that this issue will be addressed here, but I will suggest doing so in order to produce a more compelling
paper.

Section 4
one very obvious issue to address is the role of noise in the data. I can imagine that if the data is not prepared properly that noise will lead to a lot of false details. You averaged the data over a month...is there some quantitative guidance for data preparation?

The idea of connecting mechanics to this data-driven method is sensible, but I am not sure I would agree that it'd be productive to consider an asymptotic-in-time method like Lyapunov vectors and exponents with something that seems to be designed for
short time events? At the very least you'll need to explain yourself here (or omit).

Dear Drs. Abd AlRahman AlMomani and Erik Bollt,
The text still necessitates considerable attention. The stated aim of the paper is still unclear: the Authors have proposed this method in their previously cited work and thus the novelty of the method, as contrasted with the results, should be contextualized better.

Attention to editorial aspects and to issues of context resulted in a considerably improved manuscript. Not including more quantitative analysis of the method is a missed opportunity. It is hoped that this aspect be taken on in a sequel to this paper.