Dear Dr. Fudge,
The two referees provided a very different evaluation and in particular the Referee 2 found your paper not publishable in its present form suggesting a rejection. From your responses to referees’ comments I found that your justification for not using an ice flow model for quantifying the advection impacts on isotopic and accumulation records obtained from the SPICE (South Pole) ice core could be plausible. However, there are also some other concerns regarding the possible elevation effects that are not considered in your paper and should be discussed in a revised version. My opinion is that your paper needs a deeper revision than a “normal major revision”. My suggestion would be that you submit a revised manuscript answering to all the comments of both referees. This revised manuscript will be sent again to Referee 2 and also to another referee for having a further opinion.
Please, follow the instruction for authors in preparing the new manuscript. You can follow the template provided at https://www.climate-of-the-past.net/for_authors/manuscript_preparation.html. In your first version the formatting was not appropriate.

Dear Dr. Fudge,
The revised manuscript has been submitted to the referee that asked for major revision/rejection and he found that you and the co-authors have been quite convincingly addressed the his/her initial reservations.
I have also found that the you have addressed all the major concerns in your revised version, and as such I approve its publication as it is.