You provide here only a summary of your reference paper without comparing it to your findings

But you also said above you could not found any study regarding the hydrological characteristics, only glacier projections. I am wondering what is less than nothing

Have you concluded this from your analysis, or from another reference. Be more precise about your sources

why is this important, OGGM also does not include debri cover explicitly

be more specific here (2.7°C and 4°C, or only 4°C)

nice paragraph, but not needed here

again two references for one number

Does both studies give the same numbers? I doubt it. You should be more precise which study says what.

Further i could not find your numbers in any of the two studies, this hints at that you made this analysis with something like ChatGPT, without checking the facts.

according to your analysis, they are similar that the peak shifts earlier in the 'melting-season' for higher temperature scenarios

you created one plot per temperature scenario, but for easier comparison you should have plotted all in one plot.

Actually i meant that you plot something like the second plot in this chapter: https://edu-notebooks.oggm.org/oggm-edu/glacier_water_resources_projections.html#monthly-runoff

However, after rereading my instructions, I understand why you plotted something else, and this will not be seen as a mistake

wrong unit, also in labels below

they should all have the same units kg or Mt, but not km³

zugspitze volume looks almost the same for 2.7 and 4°C

this is not a mistake: but try to use colors to make it easier to understand the data (e.g. the coldest scenario blue and the hottest scenario red).

this is expected as we only select realizations within this range. The interesting question is, if our selection is close to our target (e.g. the 2.7°C selection deviates 0.01°C in the mean and 0.02°C in the median)

You cite here only the model development part of the work (Part I: model development). Their is also "Part II: application", however it is only concentrating on two basins, and neither of them is Yarla Shampo. Further this paper only deals with the past and do not make projections into the future.

As your reference is wrong, and also the text written below does not align with your reference, I suspect you used something like ChatGPT for the analysis, without checking if the facts are true.

I can not find this study with your citation. Maybe you have not correctly cited it, or it is a made up study from ChatGPT. As I also could not find any Article with Drenkhan as an Author in 'Hydrology and Earth System Sciences', also I can not find the title of the paper using a search engin.

Without a correct reference, I can not give any points, as I can not check if you made a correct comparision

very hard to follow, and most statements are not true when only looking at your plots

In this analysis you should only concentrate on each basin separately, and not comparing your specific basins (this was a previous task)

what about the rest of the year? For this glacier the main runoff season is going from Sep - April, which is the more interesting period to concentrate your analysis on

This is not visible in your plots. I think you have misunderstood the concept of peak water, as explained here: https://edu-notebooks.oggm.org/oggm-edu/glacier_water_resources.html#setting-the-scene-glacier-runoff-and-peak-water

what does robust mean here

Actually from your plots, 1.5°C shows a decline in total annual runoff until around 2060 and stabilizes afterwards. The other scenarios have a larger total annual runoff in 2100

Our

you mention this multiple times, but it is not visible to me.

I can not see any peak around 2060 for any scenario in your plots.

Do you mean your analysis here?

providing your comparison only as bullet points is not enough, you should use full/connected sentences.

this is true for all scenarios

Have you mixed the labels of your plot in this analysis? It looks like what you are describing under 1.5°C is shown for 4°C in the plot

what do you mean by that?

similar to what

you are mixing here seasonal (monthly) analysis, with annual runoff peak water. I do not understand how you can conclude from the first part or your sentence to this part.

I can not see this shift

the monthly runoff peak 'decreases until 2060'

I do not see strong differences between warming levels, regarding peak water (see also my comments above)

for salcca also hard to see any peak water, but it looks like it is around 2020-2030 or was already passed earlier

I can not see any evidence for peak water for yarla

I can not see this for your basins

Where do you see this? Refer to your own plots as well

and what about the reduction of runoff from October to December in 2060 and 2100 compared to 2020?

what does robust mean in this context?

this is not true, as it is located on the southern hemisphere the peak happens somewhere between October to March.

this is not enough, to just give bullet points about the evolution of curves. You should also write your findings down in full sentences (e.g. the seasonal peak runoff for 4°C is reached in ..., where as this peak is shifted for 1.5°C to ... .

wrong label

as this is always zero, no need to show it

not a mistake, but it is a convention to use blue for cooler temperatures and red for warmer temperatures

the runoff is already available in the dataset and you do not need to recalculate it

I do not see this. How do you come to this conclusion?

more dramatic compared to what?

is this different from volume? I think you see the same in both variables

median volume salcca almost identical for 2.7 and 4, this is not mentioned

make clear if you talk here about one or both basins

the shown data is in m²

units are not discussed

the shown data is in m³

is missing in the title

Providing numbers without references is not enough

Reference?

Reference?

Reference?

Reference?

this are not the regions but individual glaciers

Here it would be good to also add some numbers you have found (e.g. for 4°C the selection has an mean temperature of 4.06°C and a median tempreture of …)

if you want to look at the data of the two basins individually, you should execute this line in another cell

good conclusion

also include the calculations of such values into your notebook, this helps following along

very good conclusion

what do you mean with this?

very good conclusion

year is missing

delete

Nice analysis. One thing you could have look at is the spread in precipitation of the different realizations, as we only looked at temperature for grouping.

Their I wanted you to plot the monthly runoff evolution as done in the second plot of this section: https://edu-notebooks.oggm.org/oggm-edu/glacier_water_resources_projections.html#monthly-runoff

However, after reading my instructions and seeing your plot, I completely understand why you created this plot. I will try to be more clear the next time.

nice to show also the historical runoff from 2000 to 2020, however it would be good to use a different color for this period (e.g. black), to visually distinguish between historical and future data.

where and how can you see this?

given absolute numbers for temperature deviations is easier to understand, as a 1% deviation of 2.7°C is a different absolute number than 1% deviation of 4°C. (and how do you express a deviation from 0°C in %?)

This is not true generally. If for example all realizations are below the target temperature, you will also not get closer by reducing the ranges. If you want to use such statements you also should analyze the distribution of the available realizations.

see comment above

why do you expect to be closer with more realizations?

see comment above

OGGM is not a hydrology model, but only a glacier model

? be more precise about which period you are talking about

for what is this sentence here?

use different wording, e.g. our analysis shows

I do not understand this sentence, what is different between your model and the one from the paper?

What do you want to say here?

Do the other studies use more sophisticated methods?

Which robustness? How is robustness defined?

you should try to bring all studies together, and do not first compare study 1 with our findings, followed by study 2. Instead you should first concentrate on one aspect (e.g. we found that peak runoff ..., study 1 and study 2 found the same, but...)

be more concrete about which studies you are talking about

You should bring this closer together in the text. You just mention above in bullet points what the study says and here you mention what you found. A sentence connecting the two would be nice (e.g. Rets et al. (2020) found ..., which is the same as we found ...)

What do you want to say with this?

general comparisons good, but bullet points alone are not a good structure for a discussion section. You should use full sentences and be a bit more specific what you are talking about

which analysis?

which differences, be more concrete

extend which trend?

area or volume?

this refers to peak water of total annual runoff: https://edu-notebooks.oggm.org/oggm-edu/glacier_water_resources.html#setting-the-scene-glacier-runoff-and-peak-water

You analyzed the the timing of the maximum monthly runoff, which is also very interesting. In addition a short analysis of the total annual runoff peak water would be nice.

not a mistake: but if the data is grouped for different temperatures it is often a convention to use blue for colder temperatures and red for warmer temperatures, to make it easier to understand the plots

your forget to change the xlabel (similar as you have done it in the next plot)

runoff is already provided in the dataset, you do not need to recompute

I can not follow what you want to say here

where and how do you see this?

again where do you see this?

have you calculated the rate of decline somewhere to be able to make such a statement?

where and how do you see this?

where do you see this? For me the evolution of both basins looks very similar

but 2.7 and 4 are almost indistinguishable, this is not discussed

the data you are showing is in m²

the data you are showing is in m³

again "slightly" is not quantitative

also provide the exact numbers in your discussion. "most" and "fewest" is not quantitative

Go more into the details of this similarities

?

2.8°C

This should be explained before you start comparing your findings with the findings of the study

it reads as you have analyzed the precipitation trend of our used climate data. If so, show a plot, if not be clear about what you have done and what not.

similar to what, are they using the same temperature scenarios as we do? I do not think so, therefor you need to be precise what are you comparing here

Good comparisons, however your analysis should be able to be understood without reading the papers (e.g. if you use special terms from the papers, define them or use your own words instead of those terms)

if you use such terms you need to define them

You are not using this citation in your comparison below, you only mention that it exists but do not compare it. either you should not mention this citation here, or you should include it in your analysis

also reflecting that at some point no glaciers are left which can melt later in the season

this is not true, you plotted the monthly runoff for different years

If you use such terms you also should explain what they mean

here you copied a sentence of the original manuscript, but forgot something and it does not make sense

after what

you should also provide the year in citations

see comment above

what does robust mean, reads like a ChatGPT sentence

Another interesting finding would be that the seasonal peak is shifting to earlier months in Rofental, whereas their is no change of the seasonal runoff peak for Langtang visible.

runoff is already provided in the dataset, you do not need to recompute

colorbar label is missing

Missing

the data you are showing is in m²

the data you are showing in in m³

this are not the units used in the dataset

what is the meaning and range of this dimensions?

the calculations you did are correct, but you should also summaries your findings in one to two sentences

the shown data is in m³

the shown data is in m²

is missing in the title

This is copied from another group, and discuss the wrong things, as your basins are located in different locations on the globe

this is only valid for one basin, the second basin probably has a different number of glaciers

to see both basins you need to execute this comment in another cell

glaciers

this are not RGI regions, but individual glaciers

Here it would be good to also add some numbers you have found (e.g. for 4°C the selection has an mean temperature of 4.06°C and a median tempreture of ...)

references?

Do you want to say these are the only imortant processes? This is not true.

Correct, but where is the reference for this?

wrong results, because of dividing through 6 instead of 5

you should divide here through 5 and not 6

Correct, but could you provide a reference for this?

you forgot the latitudinal weighting for tempertature. see https://pat-schmitt.github.io/climate_practicals_bsc/week_02/01_Lesson_NetCDF_Data.html#arithmetics-and-averages-on-a-sphere

this plot is missing

no y-label and title in plot

Correct.

You have not answered this

Correct

References should always be included in the analysis, at the places where they fit.

Correct, but could you find some references for the other processes you are mentioning?

Ok here is your calculation ;)

Where is the calculation of these values. This should also be included in the notebook.

Correct, but please provide a reference

Correct, could you find a reference for this?

Important to give references for such statements

Correct, could you find references

numbers are slightly of the exact values, maybe due to a typo (see comment below)

correct, but could you provide a reference

Correct, could you find any references for this?

Correct, could you find references for the three other processe?

Correct

This is not answered, pre-industrial era means around 1900

Correct, but could you find a reference for this?

you forgot the latitudinal weighting of temperature (see practicals https://pat-schmitt.github.io/climate_practicals_bsc/week_02/01_Lesson_NetCDF_Data.html#arithmetics-and-averages-on-a-sphere)

Correct

Correct

Correct, but could you find a reference?

unit is missing

unit is missing

unit is missing

this link should be removed here

reference?

reference?

Correct, but you can not see this in the plot shown above

Correct

Correct, could you find a reference for this?

the temperature in the plot does not use the same timestamp as the co2 concentration, therefore you can not see their relation

You should have plotted on the x-axis the date and on the y-axis the co2 concentration. You plotted the mean monthly concentration.

Correct

Correct

Correct

Reference?

Correct, could you find a reference for this?

Correct

Correct calculation

References should be provided within your analysis (e.g. compare your findings to findings from others)

You should also shortly discuss what you can see in the plots, and not only showing the plots