Dear authors,
Two referees evaluated your manuscript, and I would like to thank both of them
for their thoughtful and timely comments. You provided detailed responses and suggestions of how to address the referee’ comments in a revised MS.
Based on these responses, I would like to ask you to upload a revised manuscript taking into account referees and editorial comments. A track-changed version would help me a lot to assess the modifications in your manuscript.
I will then decide if it has to be sent back to the original reviewers or if it is ready for publication.
Best wishes,
Etienne Berthier

Dear Authors,

I have now read your revised manuscript (MS) and yours responses to the referees. Both referees were positive about your study and I think you addressed satisfyingly their comments.

I still have a few minor editorial comments before the MS can be published (see below). Thanks for considering them before uploading the final files for copy-editing.

Do not hesitate to contact me if you have some further questions.

Thanks a lot for choosing TC to publish your work.

Best regards,

Etienne Berthier

Figure 1. Tell what the red box in panel (b) is. (i.e. the extent of several subsequent figures).

2.3. "ICESat period". Remind to readers that this is 2003-2009

2.6. "phase difference". Was not clear to me. "phase" relate to a cycle of filling/draining? Or phase in the CS2 signal itself?

Figure 3 legend. Tell here for what time period is the dz shown in red.

8.25. Were "m" and "mu_sec" defined before?

Figure 4, 6, 8-11. Tell that the extent of these figures corresponds to the red box in Figure 1b. (or maybe just once in the legend of Figure 1)

10.15. I feel the justification is not really needed. Why would you use less precise surface elevation measurements anyway?

11.1. "ignore". Rather "consider"?

18.6 maybe "surface elevation change signal"