Dear Dr. van Wessem, dear co-authors,

At this stage, please, submit your revised manuscript with the extensive edits you have shown in your responses.

Regards

Dear Dr. van Wessem, dear co-authors,

I value the work done on the revised manuscript, which has appropriately addressed the reviewers’ comments. However, the simulated aquifer spatial extents over the Wilkins ice shelf seem largely underestimated when compared to observations recently published by Montgomery et al. (2020). Montgomery et al. (2020) have mapped the aquifer extent on the Wilkins ice shelf using airborne radar observations, and they have confirmed the aquifer presence with ground-based radar data and drillings. While this study is referenced in your manuscript, there is no mention of this underestimation. As a result, I am returning this manuscript to you for adding clarification text that would benefit all readers.

More specifically:
1) it appears that the simulated aquifer spatial extents (based on two snow models) presented in the current TCD manuscript do not match the large extent identified with observations based on an established airborne radar system. This is currently not stated in the manuscript in spite of a dedicated subsection to Wilkins (section 5.1.1). Also, the abstract may offer up front a misleading statement with the following sentence: “Most persistent and extensive are PFAs modelled on and around Wilkins ice shelf. Here, both meltwater production and accumulation rates are sufficiently high to cause PFA formation on 49% of the ice shelf area […]”. Based on airborne observations (and acknowledging that data only exists along track), it seems that a much larger area of the Wilkins ice shelf has an aquifer. The latter sentence should restate that the information provided results from simulations. Moreover, it seems appropriate to address this discrepancy thoroughly in section 5.1.1, because the simulated extent seems largely underestimated.

2) of note, Montgomery et al. (2020) have published density profiles on the Wilkins ice shelf, where there is an aquifer. The in situ, ground-based, and airborne measurements presented in that study are available at https://www.usap-dc.org/view/dataset/601390. I encourage the authors to add these new density profiles in their density model evaluation, which at the moment exclusively includes density profiles over non-aquifer areas on the Larsen C ice shelf.

Montgomery, L., Miège, C., Miller, J., Scambos, T. A., Wallin, B., Miller, O., et al. (2020). Hydrologic properties of a highly permeable firn aquifer in the Wilkins Ice Shelf, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters, 47, e2020GL089552. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089552

Dear authors,
Thank you adding a full paragraph about the aquifer on Wilkins and a statement in the conclusion, your manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Cheers