Dear Authors,

Additional comments on your revised manuscript from one of the initial reviewers have now been posted.
The reviewer acknowledges significant revisions and improvement. However, he/she notes that revision has brought up a few more issues, which I would like you to consider before I can accept the paper for publication. In summary:

a) The referee (and myself!) is struck by the large contrast between the results for lead fraction between Cryosat-2 and Envisat in Figure 4. He wonders about the algorithm and strongly recommends that you check it!... I agree. It is not my field, but I would think that the contrast is so strong that it should be possible to cross-check it (at least in specific areas) e.g. against other satellite products

b) The reviewer also recommends to uniformize the color scale in Figure 5 between a, b and c...I guess he refers to the opposite color schemes(?)...

c) The referee is also concerned with the reference you make to a potential spatial resolution impact on the comparison of the results, but he argues that this should not be the case anymore since you converted both data sets to the same 10 km x 10 km (?)...is there a "memory effect" of the initial scale difference?

d) He/She also recommends that you detail check the english again and suggests a few, non exhaustive, corrections!

May I ask you to respond to these few last items so that we can move to the final acceptance of the paper?

Looking forward to your reply,
Best regards,
Jean-Louis Tison

Dear Sandra and Co-authors. Thanks for your comments. There are still a few points that however remain unclear to me:

a) lead fraction discrepancy: you do not mention in your response "if and how" you rechecked the algorithm, as requested by the reviewer and myself, given the strong discrepancy observed in Figure 4!... You have amended the text, but basically expanding on what you already said before.. I am still surprised that with such big differences in lead fractions, you get what you consider as "comparable" freeboard results (abstract)...this being said, 3-8 cm difference in freeboard still corresponds to roughly 30 to 80 cm difference in ice thickness, isn't it?.. Can we still consider this as "comparable" in an ocean where the mean ice thickness is 60 cm?... This should be addressed somehow in the manuscript, I believe..

b) spatial resolution impact on the comparison: you gave an answser, but I could not find it developed in the text itself...

Thanks for commenting on this, and providing an updated manuscript,

Cheers,

Jean-Louis Tison

Dear Authors,

Thank you for this last iteration on our editor/reviewers comments.

I think you have now a version of the manuscript which is ready for publication in The Cryosphere.

Congratulations,

Jean-Louis Tison