Dear Ms. Philippe,

I now received two reviews for your revised manuscript, which are available for you at the journal web site. The reviewer #1 recommended accepting the manuscript with minor revisions. The reviewer #2 acknowledges that estimating past SMB using the timescale is largely improved, but argued that the timescale presented in the revised manuscript is not convincing enough.

I am unable to accept this paper in the current form but happy to see another revised version as a possible contribution to the journal The Cryosphere. Please submit a revised manuscript together with point-to-point responses to all comments brought by the reviewers. Some additional guidance can be found below.

1. I agree with the reviewer #1 that the isotope/chemistry sampling was made not at high enough resolution (Figure R1 in the response letter), and that uncertainty in age control using volcanic events and its consequences should be more clearly shown in the manuscript.
2. This reviewer informed me after the review was submitted that the reviewer misunderstood the uncertainty mentioned in the manuscript (0.6%, though it is said 6%). So, the authors do not need to address the comments directly related to this misunderstanding, but respond to the age control and uncertainty issues brought by the reviewer.
3. I echo reviewer’s view on the Tambora identification. Main concerns are: (1) the unknown 1809 event is not found, (2) Tambora and 1809 events do not sustain for several years as typically seen in many cores, and (3) low sulfate and high ECM peaks (or any other data properties) are not convincingly presented to support author’s identification of the Tambora event, and (4) isotope data are unavailable from 100-101 m (see the review for the full argument by the reviewer). If the authors maintain the current argument on the Tambora identification and age control in general, please fully respond to the comments and provide argument that is more rigorous in the manuscript.
4. I found that the data presented in this manuscript is of high interest and can be publishable even if the Tambora event isn’t convincingly identifiable. If the authors pursue such publication, please fully address uncertainties in the timescale and provide a realistic range of uncertainty or possible alternative interpretations of the past SMB (does the revised timescale really support the increasing SMB?).
5. Many of reviewer #2’s comments are associated with inaccurate or incomprehensive information on previous work in DML. For example, the current manuscript only mentions that Altnau found positive SMB trend in the interior DML. However, Altnau also found a negative trend in the ice shelves. Both should be mentioned to give the full picture of previous findings. Similarly, there are many firn cores collected in DML coast (not very few, see reviewer’s comment on P3L20 of the revised manuscript), but most of them cover only up to several decades and the DIR ice core is one of only a few that covers nearly a century. Please revise the manuscript so that the manuscript articulates the current understanding in DML coastal region and emphasizes what’s exactly new in this manuscript.
6. I am afraid that some of Reviewer #2’s comments refer wrong page/line numbers (e.g. a comment on P2L20 of the revised manuscript is probably on P3L4 of the revised manuscript). However, the authors are probably able to identify the statements that the reviewer concerned in most cases. If it is unfeasible for some specific comments, please say so in the response letter.
7. Your manuscript cites Fig. 10 (P13L6ff), but the manuscript includes only 9 figures.

Editorial comments:
- I think that the authors use “accumulation” and “surface mass balance” interchangeably. Please distinguish them and use these terms consistently through the manuscript.
- Does the depth axis show physical depth or depth in water/ice equivalent? Table 2 shows that 2011 SMB is 0.98 m w.e./a, and Figure S1 shows that the 2011 layer is to about 1 m depth (I assume that the surface density is below 500 kg/m3).
- Figure 2: all depths should be positive.
- Figure 6: it’s hard to distinguish curves in different colors. Please use more distinct colors.
- Figure 7: is the ERA-Interim record shown relative to the 1980s record, while CESM and ice core data are relative to the 1860s record? Is it better to show all of these data relative to the latest years?

Thank you for submitting the manuscript to TC/TCD. Both reviewers and I found significant improvements in your manuscript through the review process, and I encourage you to submit a revised manuscript for further consideration.

Sincerely,

Kenny Matsuoka
TC/TCD editor

Dear Ms. Philippe,

The past two rounds of reviews improved the manuscript significantly and most scientific concerns brought by the referees and myself are addressed well. However, the current manuscript is not well written and it is quite hard to exactly understand your arguments. I made extraordinary efforts to make numerous editorial suggestions in the attached file.

I would like to accept this manuscript if adequate revisions are made. Please provide point-to-point responses to my suggestions; please include the page/line number in the marked revised (final) manuscript so that I can easily identify your responses in the final manuscript. In the marked manuscript, please show only the difference from the current version to the final version (by accepting all previous changes).

I look forward seeing thoughtful revisions.

Kenny Matsuoka
TC/TCD Editor

Dear Ms. Philippe

I am glad to inform you that your manuscript #TC-2016-27 is now accepted subject to technical corrections. The manuscript has been largely improved through the review process and I am happy to see this outcome. Please find my suggestions below for the technical corrections. Your corrections will be handled by editor’s office so scientific evaluation is now completed.

Page/line numbers refer my comment to your previous version.

P1L26: Understood, but then the last sentence of Abstract in the latest manuscript should be revised.

P4L26: Cite Figs. 1 and 4 of Drews et al. (2015) to show the core site location relative to radar-derived SMB (P5L20 in the revised manuscript).

P18L16 in the revised manuscript: Remove SOI (not used in the revised manuscript).