I applaud the authors for being concerned about the uncertainties. They actually include an estimates and their associated uncertainty. It is a welcome change for those researching the climate. However, the abstract states, “On average, the hydrostatic thickness differs from observed thickness by at least ~17 ± 98 m …” I interpret that to mean that the average absolute error is about 17m, with a standard deviation of ±98m. That is a little difficult to understand. A common assumption is that the uncertainty in a measurement, or calculations based on measurements, is going to be much smaller than the measurement itself. That obviously isn’t the case here. Perhaps it would be better to state the error as ranging from -81m to 115m. That is not a trivial error range. As the authors remark, the large uncertainty obtained is probably the result of spatial variability.