Dear authors,

Thank you again for your previous revisions of your manuscript. Now that we have received the report of a reviewer, I ask you to address the proposed changes and additions, in addition to the better presentation of the retrieval of SSH proposed by myself earlier.
In addition, I would like to ask you to make a few additional minor changes:
L55: of MEASURING relatively thin ice
L69: SARM: Here and elsewhere, please make sure to spell out and possibly define acronyms before first using them
L103: consists OF 722…
L107 and elsewhere: Beaufort Sea (capital Sea!); see also fig 2
L110: THESE two SAR mode versions…
L113-114: check formulation and improve
L138-141: improve clarity of paragraph
L165-166: Please state what the rejection rate is of waveforms not used for further analysis.
L180: unclear
L218: has MAX0.5 been properly introduced?
L 260-61: check formulation
L272: remove north polar stereographic grid statement. Not necessary and not quite correct?
L274-279: improve paragraph. The variance is not only representing noise, but also natural variability? ; values of what converge?
L337: strongly parallel development?

Table 1 caption: unclear what “lower three classifiers” are?
Figure 1 caption: replace Example by Typical; Clarify what you mean by normalized waveforms. They don’t look normalized in figure (i.e. they have different amplitudes; do they have same area/power or what?)
Figure 4&5, and other figures: please assure that annotations and labels are large enough to be readable in final size.
Figure 7&8 caption: be explicit about what that different mode is.

Thank you and best regards

Christian Haas