Dear Dr. Gerber and co-authors,

Thank you for your careful consideration of all comments raised by the referees. You may now upload the revised manuscript described in your responses to the referees.

All the best,
Kaitlin

Dear Dr. Gerber and co-authors,

It's clear that you took the reviewers' feedback and significantly improved the readability and flow of your manuscript, allowing your exciting results to shine. Thank you for your attention to all of the reviewers' comments and the implementation of that feedback in this version of the paper. We will be pleased to publish your manuscript after the following technical corrections are addressed:

*line number comments with respect to the track-changes version of the manuscript
Line 10: it’s unclear what ‘similarly important’ means here. Perhaps ‘…birefringence effects are most important in shallower depths…’ is what you mean here?
Line 46: consider putting ‘the standard setup in ice-sheet RES’ within parentheses here to improve the readability of this sentence. At first read, it’s unclear that you’re simply pointing out that nadir wave propagation is the standard RES setup.
Line 71: add ‘and’ before ‘impurities’
Figure 1 caption: add ‘site’ after ‘EastGRIP ice core’. Consider including a statement about whether the color scale in panel (b)’s legend applies to the other two panels.
Line 155: remove ‘over’ from this sentence
Figure 4 caption: add ‘, respectively,’ after ‘…shown as dotted and solid lines’
Line 377: I’m not sure what you’re referring to as plum in the figures. Consider adding a reference to this color designation in those figure captions.
Line 379: add ‘of’ before ‘the 180-periodicity’
Line 381: remove ‘m’ after 630
Figure 5 caption: add ‘, respectively,’ after ‘…shown as dotted and solid lines’
Line 404: ‘exceed’ here
Line 418: remove ‘m’ after 1000
Line 474: reference here is missing the publication year

All the best,
Kaitlin