Dear Natalia,

All three reviewers agreed that your paper had been substantially improved from its original submission. Two of the reviewers (Reviewers #1 and #3) suggest either technical corrections or minor revisions that need to be addressed before final acceptance of your manuscript.

Reviewer #1:

The authors have addressed most of my concerns but one issue still remains:
The presentation of the methodology still needs improvement as the authors have not addressed my concerns. The scientific description of the methods needs to be clear and the bullet points are not appropriate because they are then followed sub-sections of Incidence angle correction, thermal noise correction, etc. that is not logical in terms of flow. For example, Step 1 describes items in the following sub-sections so it falls apart almost immediately. Section 3 needs to be revised in a logical, orderly manner which can be done easily: remove the text before 3.1 and then just describe the approach.

Specific comments:

Page1, Line 19,
Remove text: “The next step will be to adapt and apply the algorithm for classification of several ice types using Sentinel-1A/B as the main data source.” This is not relevant to this study and does not belong in the Abstract.

Page 11 Line 10
Add a reference to the corrected image (Figure 3) to support your discussion.


Reviewer #3:

The authors have thoroughly taken into account the many comments they received after the first review. Good job! Only minor improvements should be made now. I included suggestions and a few questions in the PDF-file (attached).