Please amend your paper according to the latest recommendations of Reviewer 1. However, subject to these amendments being made, and for a through copy-editing of the manuscript, I shall be pleased to accept your paper for publication in THE CRYOSPHERE.
Edward Hanna

Dear Dr. Fettweis,
I am pleased to accept your paper subject to you making a few final revisions, which are listed below.
Sincerely,
Edward Hanna

p.10, l.29: “MAR also underestimates accumulation compared to ice cores in the north-east but is better than the BOX13 results, which significantly overestimate the accumulation because they are based on RACMO2 outputs, which are known to underestimate accumulation in this area (Noël et al., 2016).”

This sentence still doesn’t make sense and needs further rewriting. How come the BOX13 results overestimate accumulation when they are based on a (RACMO2) model which *underestimates* accumulation? How do we know that the MAR results are “better than” BOX13 if both models have (contrary) biases?

p.12, ll.1-2: “The 1900-1920 coastal temperature was lower than to the 1981-2010 average” – delete “to” and insert comma after “average”.

p.14, l.24: “The ice sheet-averaged core values are almost insignificant” – change “values” to “trends”.

p.14, l.32: “not on the same locations” – change “on” to “at”.

p.14, l.33: change “the number of data” to “the amount of data”.

I am pleased to accept your paper now for publication in THE CRYOSPHERE. Congratulations!
Sincerely,
Edward Hanna