Dear authors,

thank you very much for your replies to the review comments and for the revised manuscript. Both reviews were rather favourable and have provided concrete feedback that you have addressed in detail. After reading the revised manuscript, I only have few minor requests before publication:

One reviewer asked about the difference between Holocene and late Pleistocene ice wedges. You have replied, but not included any changes in the text. It may be good to clarify at one place in your manuscript what the difference is, and possibly, why you chose a certain definition for late Pleistocene.

P13L9 You write “We therefore suggest that incorporating DOC from non-massive ground-ice types would lead to a significant rise in DOC stocks in permafrost of at least one order of magnitude.” This implies that previous analyses excluded the pore-ice carbon. Is this really true?

P4L5 delete “as mentioned above”

P5L1 put the “and” at the end of the previous bullet

P13L4 Please do not include the “unpublished values” as this would make them de-facto published without providing reproducibility. At least, do not show the numbers. You could just say “…have been found to be higher…”.

P17L6 “is accompanied”

Kind regards,
Stephan Gruber

Thank you very much for your revisions,

please just change the sentence "We therefore suggest that incorporating DOC from non-massive ground-ice types would lead to a significant rise in DOC stocks in permafrost of at least one order of magnitude." so as to make it more clear that you suggest distinguishing POC and DOC in other types of permafrost.

Thank you for publishing your work in The Cryosphere.

Kind regards,
Stephan