Hi Stefanie, Mario and co-authors,

I have now read your detailed responses to the two reviewers, but, if I am not mistaken, could not find the file with revised manuscript, highlighted with changes. I guess you were waiting for the changes to the figures, with understandable reasons.

I believe you have answered most of the comments from the reviewer. I am still a little bit uneased by missing any data on ecosystem and ocean circulation, as these items were underlined both by the two reviewers and by myself initially..

I would therefore like you to consider the following further comments in your response:

a) Comment of reviewer 1 on "contextualizing" the discussion of the results with the observation and modelling work Hughes, Dempsey, Robinson and Cheng: it is good that you have included those refrences, but, not having the new version of the manuscript, I cannot judge on how you adequately used these references to "contextualize". Please be sure this explicitely comes out in your final manuscript version

b) If the process of "blocking by underwater topographic features" is invoked, it has to be documented one way or another. Also, I can understand that you would like to expand on the oceanographic part in a companion paper, but at least mention it as "work under way" , "in prep", "submitted" or "in press"...

c) Fabric and crystal structure: please, at least clearly acknowledge their interest and the unavailibilty for logistic reason, or eventually use infos from Hoppman papers..

d) Reviewer 2 has underlined my comments on the total absence of data on ecosystem and related variables. He asked for delete. I can understand you want to show how your physical data set would be of interest for future multidisciplinary work on this...I would therefore accept your comment, but with two wording changes:
- change "...prevents a significant light input..." to "... should prevent..."
- change: "...which was introduced in this study..." to "...which was introduced in this physical study"...
-ensure that there is no discussion left on the potential role of leads and cracks on the light regime or other matters that have not been documented...

e) My initial comments on "ocean circulation" and "ecosystem" have been adressed above. There is still my comment on "snow ice formation" which is mentioned several time without any data...the same stands for this...did you document it with isotopic measurements (since there is no crystallography)?...If it is just hypothetical, don't mention snow ice formation in the manuscript.

Please make sure that all the changes are highlighted in your revised manuscript (and if you can help me in choosing a different color for this last run of comments, that would be great!)

Good luck,

Jean-Louis.

Dear Stéphanie, Mario and co-authors,

Thank you very much for your detailed revised version.

I think you have now answered all the comments of the reviewers and myself. Given the fact that there were many changes to the manuscript, I have gone through it in details once more. As usual, changes bring comments. I still have a few of these, mostly technical, but not all. I am attaching a tracked version of your revised manuscript so that you can produce a final manuscript. That shouldn't take you long.

Good luck for this last "straight line"!..

Cheers,

Jean-Louis.

Hi Sandra and Co,

I think we are getting there.. unfortunately I still have a few points that still need to be cleared up!...see the attachment!..

Tchuess,

Jean-Louis.

Congratulations!..