Dear Authors,
thank you for the revisions. However, I think you haven't addressed my comments from the initial Editor's review. Please could you consider to include my suggestions, and to reply to them. My comments:
1. Given that sea ice coverage trends have been published previously and extensively, and are well established since many years, the motivation for your work is not really clear. I understand that your work is significant because it introduces new time series based on new algorithms, which are potentially superior to previously published work. I also understand that you may want to avoid statements as to which products are better, which is hard to convincingly prove anyways. However, I would like to request that you at least include comparison between the trends derived by you with previously published trends, and what the possible reasons for the agreements or disagreements are. Only then can the consequences and impacts of your work be evaluated, and why it would be worthwhile to reconcile studies of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice trends with your new product.
2. A routine Similarity Assessment has revealed that your manuscript has a similarity index of 24% compared to previously published work. This is unusually high compared with other manuscripts. A closer inspection revealed that approximately 20% of your manuscript was more or less copied literally from initial OSISAF reports (Tonboe and Nielsen, 2011; and Eastwood et al., 2010). As this is your own work, I think you cannot be accused of fraud; however, it would be important to cite those reports and to put your work into context and to point out the basis (and substantial historical experience) that has gone into it.

Thank you and best regards

Christian

Thank you for your consideration of my comments! Good luck with the data set!
Christian