Thank you for your detailed responses to the reviewers. Please provide a revised version of the manuscript with the proposed changes - it is particularly important to include more detail on the methodology. Please consider working some of the responses directly into the text e.g.

'‘Potentially’ supercooled Ice Shelf Water (ISW) (i.e., the definition of ISW) in the upper surface ocean promotes sea ice formation and causes it to be thicker by stabilising the upper surface layer, by hindering vertical mixing and insulating sea ice from warmer subsurface waters below. Thicker Ice Shelf Water influenced sea ice inherently has a higher freeboard than sea ice without this influence.

Platelet ice is a direct manifestation and distinct signature of ‘in situ’ supercooled ISW at the ocean surface which causes the fast ice freeboard to stand higher through two effects: 1) the fast ice is thicker by platelet ice accumulation, and augmented growth through heat flux to the heat-deficit in the ocean induced by ‘in situ’ supercooled Ice Shelf Water, and 2) the buoyancy effect of the SPL if present. Satellite altimetry measurements cannot differentiate between higher freeboard driven by ‘in situ’ or ‘potentially’ supercooled ISW but as showcased here, can identify a region where the fast ice freeboard near an ice shelf has significantly higher than average freeboard due to the influence of ISW in the upper surface ocean.'

is a succinct description of the problem.

Also 'Novel aspects of the study are as follows: - The application of satellite altimetry to identify a known pattern of higher freeboard caused by thicker ice shelf-influenced fast ice combined with the buoyant forcing of the SPL which both result from supercooled ISW outflow. - The method to identify the best-matching freeboard interface for individual CS2 tracks as described in L251-260 and L401-405. - Calculation of ice thickness from CS2 freeboard in McMurdo Sound for multiple years and comparison with interpolated in situ measured ice shelf-influenced fast ice and SPL and their combined Mass Equivalent Thickness (MET). L236-249; L290-327; Figures 4 and 5. - Assessment and comparison of regional trends in CS2 freeboard (Table 1), and linear trends in CS2 ice thickness towards the McMurdo Ice Shelf in a region with significant ISW influence (centre) and another region with less pronounced ISW influence (east) (Figure 4). - Assessment of spatial patterns of CS2 freeboard and CS2 ice thickness and comparison with in situ observed distributions of ice shelf-influenced fast ice and SPL (presented as a combined Mass Equivalent Thickness (MET))' may be shortened and summarized somewhere, either in the Introduction or in the Discussion/Conclusion.

Following ESA convention, please refer to SAR Interferometry as InSAR.

Dear Dr. Brett et al.

Many thanks for the changes you have made to your paper and points raised during the discussion process. This paper is now ready for publications, subject to the following technical corrections:

Line 215 finishes with two periods, should be one.
Lines 401, 403, 553, 589, 615, 621 SIN -> InSAR
Line 617 - please add doi for datasets

Many thanks and with best wishes,
Mel