Dear authors,

thank you very much for your revised manuscript and your author's comments, which respond very well to the points and queries raised by the two reviewers. I re-read the manuscript myself, and have some minor comments/questions to add, which are detailed in the following. I would like to ask you to respond to them point-by-point, and revise your manuscript accordingly. Hereafter, the manuscript can be accepted for publication in The Cryosphere.

Kind regards,
Christian Hauck
Editor

Detailed comments:
p4, line 25-26: "sensitivity values < 0.1". This point was raised by reviewer 1 ("what is meant by low sensitivity areas and how does it reflect uncertainties ?"), but was not really answered in the author's response. Where does this sensitivity value come from and how is it calculated ? Why do you use a limit of 0.1 ? This has to be justified and the explanation also given in the paper (or referenced).

p4, line 33ff:
This is not clear to me: do you mean "divided into layers of 0.1 m thickness within the uppermost meter" ?

p5, line 4 (and at many places in the manuscript: I think the term"gridded dataset" is more common, at least in the climate community.
I would suggest using "gridded dataset" instead of "grid dataset" throughout the manuscript and in the supplementary material text.

p6, line 9-16 (and in the following analysis of ERT results and EIC calculations):
The uncertainty analysis of the ERT/T-based permafrost thicknesses is only given for P3. Why not for all examples in this paragraph and even more, all values/data in Table 3 ? Without additional information, these highly accurate estimations
Again, this was mentioned also by reviewer 1 ("P6, L10-12: I do not understand how the accuracy of the loggers and the inherent uncertainty in ERT is considered in estimating this very precise thickness value without an uncertainty range. Is this an estimate of maximum likely thickness?").
Are such accurate numbers (e.g. 5.4m - p8, l28) drawn from the rather coarse ERT results alone ? Not to speak of the inherent uncertainties of the inversion process...maybe using thicknesses such as 5, 5.5m etc would be more appropriate, and/or the use of uncertainty ranges.

This uncertainty would propagate also to the EIC values given later in the manuscript.

p15, l30: "global climate model predict"

p16, line 13: "as well as possible heat transport from sub-permafrost groundwater" - this has strictly speaking not been mentioned before. If it appears in the conclusion, it should also appear in the results or discussion section.

Table 3: Inferred maximum permafrost thickness: in a similar way as reviewer 1, I do not understand how these very accurate thicknesses were derived from ERT without giving an uncertainty range ? See my comments above.

Supplementary material:
Appendix S1, first paragraph, last sentence: "the daily climate station data backwards to 1900"

S1, second paragraph: "based on the anomalies and the averages during the reference period at each sites" --> "site" instead of "sites"

S1, general: This seems to me a very basic downscaling approach (delta approach, if I understood it right), which does neither take into account local conditions (or were the 1° climate data somehow downscaled to local conditions via meteo stations ?) nor the possibility that minimum and maximum temperature trends will develop differently in a future climate.
Do you have any justification/prior studies which use this approach ? Otherwise, in my opinion, the scenarios used can be seen rather as a sensitivity study (what would happen under different climate conditions) than a real projection into the future. If this is the case, then it should be stated accordingly in the manuscript.

S1, last sentence: "wind speed data was filled..."

Dear authors,

thank you very much for your revised manuscript and author reply. I found your answers to my comments very satisfactory, but would suggest to include them (or more parts of them) also in the paper, see my comments in the annotated manuscript. Apart from that (and some very small typos), the manuscript is ready for publication in The Cryosphere from my point of view.

Thank you very much again for submitting your manuscript to TC,
kind regards,

Christian Hauck
Editor