Accumulation rates over past 260 years archived in Elbrus ice core, Caucasus

Mikhalenko and others.

The authors present an important new paleo reconstruction of precipitation, seasonally resolved, from the 182 m long Mt. Elbrus ice core. They apply sensible ice flow corrections to the data prior to interpretation, to allow for layer thinning, and show the regional extent of correlation between the ice core data and meteorological stations. They also demonstrate that precipitation in the region is linked to Atlantic variability, and show that the paleo reanalysis EK400v2 is shows a likely unphysical disagreement with the ice core accumulation data prior to 1850, in contrast to good correlation from 1850 to present. This should caution future users of the paleo reanalysis to view the 1750-1850 period of this product with healthy skepticism.

The paper is generally well organized and composed, although it is significantly under-referenced in many sections which is its primary weakness at present draft. The authors make many statements which need to be referenced against the relevant supporting literature. I will note some specific instances, but not all. The manuscript does need to be edited for grammar.

L46: this paragraph should refer to the literature of published ice core accumulation records.

L50: what errors are the authors referring to? They seem to be thinking of a particular result here but do not give a reference

L58 “compared” to other

L74: how long was the 2020 core?

Section 2.2.1: generally the author’s presentation of dating and uncertainty is good, but the uncertainty of the record should be extended to graphical presentation of the data (shading, error bars, etc.).

L271: Appreciate that the authors clearly state limitations of the data and define boundaries for interpretation 

L284: reference?

L359: CAPE corrections for seasonality are really well done and much needed. This is great.

L384: Statement on snow deposition isn’t supported by data or reference.

L395: Section on occlusion unsupported by data or reference

L405: make sure acronyms are written out initially and defined.

695 Data availability statement isn’t justified and currently doesn’t align with CP policies which encourage archiving of data in agreement with FAIR principles. Authors must justify why data are only available on request, which often very must restricts access to datasets.

Finally, I do apologize for the lateness of this review and hope it hasn’t unduly impacted the authors.