Dear authors,
thank you for addressing the reviewer’s comments so well and congratulations to a fine paper. Please could you consider to make the following, minor changes before we move ahead with the final publication:
P3, L18 ff: please write Envisat (lower case s)
P4, L27 and elsewhere: please consider to use AEM instead of Air-EM
P7 L7-8: data: plural or singular?
P 7 bottom: check RiEdel references; should be ie?
P8 L10 and bottom: could you state in what sense spatial autocorrelation is accounted for, and what typical correlation lengths are assumed?
P9 bottom: how is the decision about I made, weather it is 1 or 0?
P10, L15: if bi’s are positive, doesn’t that indicate that the thicknesses are thinner (not thicker) than the reference? Because adding bi reduced the error? Maybe this isn’t explained well enough; might change/revers some conclusions later on?
P13, top: found IN the error…
P16, L20: …Western Arctic NOW DOMINATED BY FIRST-YEAR ICE…?
Table 1: AEM goes from 2001 to 2009; but you use data up to 2012… how come?!
Table 2: improve formatting
Table 2: what coefficient is Coefficient actually? Is this the bi from Eq 2 (see also comment above)?
Table 4: SCICEX (first S missing)