Hi Dr. Ziesing et al.,

Thanks for your clear responses to the reviews this MS received. I anticipate that this MS will be accepted following submission of a suitably revised MS. There two separate issues that I would also like to see addressed:

1. The statement of "an almost perfect agreement" in the abstract yet the lack of a direct quantification of the relation between the radar and ice-core fabric measurements is not satisfactory. This needs to be quantified, whether by a simple correlation coefficient, rms difference or some other suitable metric. I recognize that the relevant eigenvalue difference varies with depth, so perhaps a depth subset is appropriate/simpler, but the present situation is dissonant for what is an other quantitatively rigorous MS.

2. What is the ice thickness at both the study sites, and for what fraction of the ice column is the S/N high enough to analysis? There are several paths here. First, the ice thicknesses ought to be given in the text. Second, in Figures 2 and 3 either show the complete radar dataset down to the bed (or the noise floor, whichever is first), or show an additional vertical axis that is the fraction of the ice thickness rather than absolute depth. Otherwise, the casual reader could be left with the impression that you've measured fabric through the entire ice column, rather than what I suspect is closer to half of it. Still a big improvement over earlier methods, but a more sober representation of the outcome. Related to this, it could be worth discussing how we might eventually be able to detect bulk fabric changes all the way to bed.

Thanks again for your submission to TC,

Joe MacGregor

Hi Dr. Ziesing et al.,

Thanks for your response to my two comments. However, I don't think they are yet fully responsive. Please address these last concerns:

1. Thanks for further quantifying the agreement between your method and the ice core. However, the statement "almost perfect agreement" in the abstract and text (L168) is still concerning. How about "excellent agreement" instead? This is a more common phrase and will raise fewer eyebrows.

2. In the text, (L169-170), the first part of this sentence could be added to the previous one. The second part about "lowest possible value" adds little and IMO isn't fully correct, i.e., the rms difference could be lower than 0.03, it just can't be meaningfully interpreted below that limit. So I suggest to just delete that part.

3. Thanks for clarifying the ice thickness and added a second vertical axis to Figure 3. Could you also add it to Figure 2?

Joe MacGregor

Thanks for your quick turnaround and congratulations on the acceptance of your MS to TC. It is an excellent result and exposition thereof.