Dear Thomas Munch and co-authors,

Your manuscript, "How precipitation intermittency sets an optimal sampling distance for temperature reconstructions from Antarctic ice cores", has now received two reviews as well as a short comment. The reviews and comment are positive and give constructive suggestions for improvements to the manuscript, and your responses demonstrate that you are well progressed in thinking about how to revise your manuscript to address these suggestions.

I would now ask that you prepare a revised manuscript, including a response to reviewer document that describes the changes that have been made in response to each comment or an explanation where reviewer comments haven't been implemented. Following from the additional short comment, I think that your manuscript would also benefit from adding a short section to the discussion comparing your model results with networks of real ice core data.

Thank you again for submitting your work to Climate of the Past. I look forward to reading your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,
Nerilie Abram

Dear Thomas Munch and co-authors,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript to Climate of the Past. The revisions that you have made following the review process, and the comments provided in the response letter, are clearly laid out and well implemented in the revised manuscript. I'm therefore pleased to be able to accept your paper for publication in Climate of the Past.

Sincerely,
Nerilie Abram