Dear Dr. Glowacki,

thank you for submitting detailed and easy-to-follow replies to the two Referees. Based on Referees' positive and constructive feedback, and my own reading of the manuscript and responses, I find the paper well-suited for the journal and would like to invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript. Since there are a number of revisions extending beyond the scope of minor corrections, please, see this decision as "publish subject to moderate revisions".

Best regards,
Evgeny Podolskiy

Dear Dr. Glowacki,

thank you for submitting a revised version of your manuscript, which I am pleased to accept for its publication in The Cryosphere.

I hope you would find the following technical corrections (listed below) useful when you prepare your final files.

Best regards,
Evgeny Podolskiy

[Editorial Comments]

p.2
Line 30
"the pioneering work of Qamar and St. Lawrence (1983)."
->I would be cautious here with “pioneering”. To my knowledge, seismic studies and proposals to gauge calving, can be found as early as in 1962 (e.g., Hatherton, T., and F. Evison (1962), A special mechanism for some Antarctic earthquakes, N. Z. J. Geol. Geophys., 5, 864–873.), which I suggest to include.

p.3
line 7
“They identified icequake duration as the most significant predictor of iceberg volume.”
->since similar reports were also made before, as early as in 1988, I suggest to edit as:
“They identified icequake duration as the most significant predictor of iceberg volume {in line with previous findings by Qamar (1988)}.” or similar.

Qamar, A. (1988), Calving icebergs: A source of low-frequency seismic signals from Columbia Glacier, Alaska, J. Geophys. Res., 93(B6), 6615–6623, doi:10.1029/JB093iB06p06615.

If you do so, the next sentence will have to be corrected as
“Based on this study,”
->
“Based on these studies,”

Line 15 or around
For a truly complete list of the most recent works, you may also find relevant a study by Walter et al., now in TCD "Calving event size measurements and statistics of Eqip Sermia, Greenland, from terrestrial radar interferometry”. https://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2019-102/

p.6,
line 24
events..
->redundant period.

p. 8
line 4
For a complete description, please add the length of window used for a spectrogram.

line 19
11 stations ->
11 points?

p.9
lines 13-14
I think, here or where you find most appropriate, it would be useful to mention that you are completely omitting water absorption from considerations as presumably negligible for your frequency range, isn’t it?

p. 12
Line 16
discussed in (4.4). ->
discussed in section 4.4.

p. 13
Line 17
in detail in (4.5). ->
in detail in section 4.5.

p. 20
Line 27
the disintegration of bigger icebergs could be mistaken with glacier calving events.
-> this issue has been studied by Richardson et al., 2010, which you may find relevant to cite here:

Richardson, J. P., Waite, G. P., FitzGerald, K. A., & Pennington, W. D. (2010). Characteristics of seismic and acoustic signals produced by calving, Bering Glacier, Alaska. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(3), doi: 10.1029/2009GL041113

Supplement

Figure S4(b)
I suggest to explain to the reader what is the plane of view in the scheme, and that D and L represent factual shortest distances receiver—front and the full range of possible distances along the front, respectively. Otherwise it can be a bit confusing and not straightforward to understand the orientation of the angle you discuss here and in the text.