Dear Dr. Cartwright, dear co-authors,

In my view, the reviewers raised valid points. Note that reviewer 1 has recommended rejection of the manuscript. However, I do not find the review strong enough to justify this decision. The reviewer has mentioned: “The largest concern is related to the potential use of the technique for cryospheric purposes.” Clearly, the addition of section 5 to describe more thoroughly the limitations of the method improves your manuscript. Thank you for writing it. Please, make sure to adjust the abstract accordingly.

I noticed that you have responded to the comments of reviewer 1 but repeatedly failed to indicate how your revised manuscript will be modified to take the comments into account (e.g. comments 1, 5). I would strongly encourage you to improve your manuscript when reviewers felt necessary to raise a point.

Reviewer 1, comment 1: Based on both reviews, I recommend you adjust the term “highly beneficial”.

In the proposed section 5, “Due to the unknown physical properties of the surface, the penetration of L-Band into snow and/or ice is a significant unknown.” While surface properties have indeed an effect on the L-band radiation (references of your choice would be welcome), it is my understanding that it really is the properties at depth that influence the most the penetration depth.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.07.035
https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2014.2312102

In the same section, when addressing the range of penetration depth, I think it is appropriate to reference work on L-band penetration in Antarctica. To my knowledge, this is the most recent study that may be of your interest: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10121954.

At this stage, please, consider this additional input and submit your revised manuscript with the edits you have already shown in your responses.

Regards

Dear Dr. Cartwright, dear co-authors,

I thank you for the work done on the revised manuscript, which can be accepted for publication.

Regards