Dear authors

Thank you for your patience with the evaluation of this manuscript. It has not been easy to secure competent reviewers and I had to compromise on speediness for this purpose.

First, I would like to comment on the unintuitive rating your manuscript received during the initial review in the open discussion. Referee #1 (Satoshi Akagawa) rated your manuscript to be ‘fair’ in all assessment categories and, at the same time recommended acceptance with technical corrections, only. This deserves further commenting because a consistent rating of ‘fair’ would be ground for rejection from The Cryosphere. The review provided detailed comments, but no traceable grounds for rejection. As a consequence, the rating of ‘fair’ was interpreted as a misunderstanding. Referee #2 recommended minor revisions and likewise provided comments on individual issues. Given the nature of revisions requested, I have decided to send your revised manuscript to only one reviewer for an assessment of your changes and your rebuttal.

Now, Referee #2 has evaluated your responses to both referee’s questions and recommends publication of your manuscript as is. This reviewer mentions that your present manuscript is consistent and ready to be published and, at the same time, recognizes that some disagreement w.r.t. bound/mobile water and the physics of freezing soil will remain and cannot be resolved in the current discussion between authors and reviewers.

I have read your rebuttal and your edited manuscript and am happy to agree.

Congratulations – and once again, I regret that this process took longer than usual.

Kind regards,
Stephan Gruber