Dear authors,

One reviewer has commented your revised paper again. Please address all comments and supply a point to point reply, as well as a revised version of your paper using tracked changes mode.
Since there remain open question about the OSL dating on the basal sediment of the Chongce ice cap (determination of dose rate, identification of the sediment origin), the uncertainties of the resulting ages should be clearly and openly stated and discussed. Addressing these uncertainties in this pioneer work is important for future studies.

Many thanks for your contribution, Julia

Dear authors,

thanks for carefully considering all suggestions by the reviewers and providing further explanations. I am pleased to accept your paper for publication in TC after some minor technical changes, which include corrections of the English language.
Specifically, the added sentences need English clarification:

Page 4, Line 29: Thus we prefer to the results of the fine grains, but provide the coarse grain quartz results in the Supplement (Table S3).
Should it be "We therefore used" and “results from the fine quartz grains”?

Page 4, Line 30: It’s apparent that even the coarse grain ages are slightly older compared to the fine grain ages (Table 1), they are in a similar age range.
My suggestion for change:
Although the coarse grain ages are slightly older than the fine grain ages (Table 1), they clearly fall within a similar range.

Please make sure that your paper is proof read again for potential errors in grammar or spelling.
Sincerely,
Julia