Dear Authors,

Thank you for providing detailed responses to the comments and suggestions offered by three reviewers.

All three reviewers recognized the novelty of your approach examining permafrost thaw impacts across different scales and high-quality data sets presented in the well written manuscript. At the same time, they also provided many suggestions for you to improve the presentation and interpretation of data. In my view, your responses have adequately addressed most of the raised issues. However, the manuscript would require a substantial revision to address a large number of points and technical corrections. Therefore, I have to recommend ‘reconsider after major revisions’.

I would like to ask you to make all the changes easily identifiable in a marked-up manuscript based on your point-by-point responses to the reviewer comments. If possible, please specify the line numbers of the revised parts in your responses accompanying the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Ji-Hyung Park
Associate Editor, Biogeosciences

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your careful revision of the manuscript considering all reviewer comments and suggestions. I am pleased to let you know that your manuscript can be published after technical corrections of the following:

- Please provide a brief explanation or definition of RTSs at the first use of the term in Abstracts and Introduction.
- Line 171: The original name of the program is “CO2SYS”.
- Lines 369-370 “In the Stony Creek headwaters, we also found an influence from exchange with atmospheric CO”: indicated by which result?
- Tank et al. (2020): Is this a paper published in the journal “Permafrost and Periglacial Processes”? Please correct the journal name and provide information about the volume and pages in a proper format.


Sincerely,

Ji-Hyung Park
Associate Editor, Biogeosciences