Abstract. We derive for the first time a statistical lead-width distribution for Antarctic sea ice using Weddell sea ice as a case study. Therefore, we transfer previous approaches for Arctic sea ice with a power law with a positive exponent (p(xwidth) xwidth−a, a > 1) to Antarctic sea ice. We use 20 carefully selected cloud-free Copernicus Sentinel-2 images from November 2016 until February 2018, covering only the months from November to April. In doing so we compare exponents given in the literature for the Arctic sea ice, who do not agree with each other, to Antarctic sea ice. To detect leads we create a sea ice surface type classification for the Sentinel-2 Level 1C data products, which are selected due to their high spatial resolution of 10 m. We apply two different fitting methods to the measured lead widths, which have been used in previous studies for Arctic sea ice. The first fitting method is a linear fit, while the second method is based on a maximum likelihood approach. Here, we use both methods for the same lead-width data set to observe differences in the calculated power law exponent. To further investigate influences on the power law exponent, we define two different lead thresholds for open water and nilas. The influence of the lead threshold on the exponent is bigger for the linear fit than for the method based on the maximum likelihood approach. We show that the exponent of the lead-width distribution ranges between 1.16 to 1.41 depending on the applied fitting method and lead threshold. This exponent for the Weddell sea ice is smaller than the previously observed exponents for the Arctic sea ice.

<p>Geoscientists identifying as LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer, Intersexual, Asexual, plus) are currently likely to face several more obstacles throughout their career compared to their cisgender/heterosexual colleagues. Additionally, they could experience the cumulative effect of an intersection of sexism, racism, and colonialism, if coming from one or more under-represented communities. With the aim to gather an EGU-based LGBTQIA+ group to coordinate and encourage a positive change within EGU and the broader geoscience community, a first social event was organized during the General Assembly (GA) in 2019, followed by a similar event during the GA in 2020 and 2021. Last year, the working group (WG) created a Discord forum to meet more frequently online and have a place for mutual support. The series of bottom-up initiatives - all community-driven -  aimed at raising awareness or promoting initiatives for changes. These have included thus far: gathering feedback, promoting initiatives toward the inclusion of LGBTQIA+ scientists in the EGU community, and doing research in general (i.e., conducting fieldwork as LGBTQIA+ individuals in locations where it can be considered more dangerous, due to the illegality of belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community). An additional task the WG has undertaken is to engage with the wider community via webinars and represent the WG in meetings with other stakeholders. The WG also works closely with the Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Committee of EGU for improving the representation and inclusion of their members at EGU and across the scientific organizations. In this presentation, we summarise our work since the last General Assembly and highlight areas where we hope to attract further support for institutional and cultural changes that will foster an inclusive culture for LGBTQIA+ geoscientists.</p>

Abstract. Using Copernicus Sentinel-2 images we derive a statistical lead-width distribution for the Weddell Sea. While previous work focused on the Arctic, this is the first lead-width distribution for Antarctic sea ice. Previous studies suggest that the lead-width distribution follows a power law with a positive exponent; however their results for the power-law exponents are not all in agreement with each other. To detect leads we create a sea-ice surface-type classification based on 20 carefully selected cloud-free Sentinel-2 Level-1C products, which have a resolution of 10 m. The observed time period is from November 2016 until February 2018, covering only the months from November to April. We apply two different fitting methods to the measured lead widths. The first fitting method is a linear fit, while the second method is based on a maximum likelihood approach. Here, we use both methods for the same lead-width data set to observe differences in the calculated power-law exponent. To further investigate influences on the power-law exponent, we define two different thresholds: one for open-water-covered leads and one for open-water-covered and nilas-covered leads. The influence of the lead threshold on the exponent is larger for the linear fit than for the method based on the maximum likelihood approach. We show that the exponent of the lead-width distribution ranges between 1.110 and 1.413 depending on the applied fitting method and lead threshold. This exponent for the Weddell Sea sea ice is smaller than the previously observed exponents for the Arctic sea ice.

thank you for handling the editing process and for giving all this hands-on advice for improvement of the paper. Our responses to the referees are posted. If anything is missing and/or unclear, we are happy to provide more answers and information. We are thankful for the explicit examples for language improvement made by you and the reviewers and it was helpful to see where we can improve our writing. We also agree, that the paper will become longer after we edit it due to integration of more content in the method section and discussion of our results and that a short letter-styled paper

No abstract

P7 L6-21: it would be better to expand on the difference between lead statistics in the Arctic and Antarctic in a separate subsection. Most of the lead studies in the Arctic are conducted in the Beaufort Sea area. Some organized presentation should show the differences in the results, with related reasons if possible, and then comparison with findings from the Weddell Sea area. We will restructure the discussion and give additional detailed about the differences. CONCLUSION Before you mention about the method, you should mention the data used in the study. Will be revised.