The authors would like to make the following corrections to the published article [1]. In Section 1, fourth paragraph: In the sentence “Proxy Proxy data, such as glacio-chemical data from firn and ice cores, may partly compensate for the lack of direct observations.” the word “Proxy” should be deleted as it occurs twice. The sentence should have read: “Proxy data, such as glacio-chemical data from firn and ice cores, may partly compensate for the lack of direct observations.”. In Section 3.4, second paragraph: In the sentence “The slope of the δ18O–δD relationship (7.94) is close to that of the Global Meteoric Water Line (GMWL) [49] and is of the same order of magnitude as the slope of the site-specific LMWL (m = 7.76).” the “m =” should be deleted before “7.76” and “, 8” should be inserted after “GMWL”. The sentence should have read: “The slope of the δ18O–δD relationship (7.94) is close to that of the Global Meteoric Water Line (GMWL, 8) [49] and is of the same order of magnitude as the slope of the site-specific LMWL (7.76).”. In Section 4.5, first paragraph: In the sentence “Figure 8c,e visualise the anti-correlation between MLT and SIE in both the Bellingshausen-Amundsen Sea and the Weddell Sea (r > −0.6, p = 0; Table 5).” the “>” in the parenthesis should be replaced by “=”. The sentence should have read: “Figure 8c,e visualise the anti-correlation between MLT and SIE in both the Bellingshausen-Amundsen Sea and the Weddell Sea (r = −0.6, p = 0; Table 5).”. In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 1 [1]. The order of the values in the column “Accumulation Rate (kg m−2 a−1)” was reversed for the years 2012 to 2015. The authors state that the scientific results for the accumulation rates in Table 1, which are presented and discussed in Sections 3.2 and 4.2 of the original publication, are not affected by this mistake, as all values were used correctly there. The corrected Table 1 is as follows: Annual accumulation rates calculated for the OH-12 drill site for the period 2012–2015. In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 6 [1]. The intercept in the equation for the δ18O−δD relationship of firn core OH-12 should be +6.01 and not −6.01. The corrected equation is δD = 7.94 × δ18O + 6.01. A correction was also made to the second paragraph in Section 3.4, where in the sentence “However, intercepts differ significantly (OH-12: −6.01; LMWL: −1.52; GMWL: +10), which is also reflected by the position of the OH-12 samples in the δ18O–δD plot (Figure 6a).” the intercept of the δ18O−δD relationship of firn core OH-12 should accordingly be +6.01 and not −6.01. In addition, in the same sentence the word “the” should be inserted before the word “intercepts”. The sentence should have read: ”However, the intercepts differ significantly (OH-12: +6.01; LMWL: −1.52; GMWL: +10), which is also reflected by the position of the OH-12 samples in the δ18O–δD plot (Figure 6a).”. The updated Figure 6 is as follows: (a) δ18O–δD relationship of all considered precipitation samples collected at Bernardo O’Higgins station (OH) between 2008 and 2017 (n = 294; coloured dots) compared to the δ18O–δD relationship of firn core OH-12 (n = 414; white dots). The Global Meteoric Water Line (GMWL) is indicated in blue. The Local Meteoric Water Line (LMWL) established for the study site by Fernandoy et al. [31,32] is shown as a dashed red line and the LMWL derived in this study as a solid red line. For each δ18O–δD relationship, the equation, the coefficient of determination (R2) and the p-value (p) are given. (b) Time series of δ18O, δD and d excess of OH-12 constructed based on the weighted age scale. High-resolution data are shown as light-coloured lines and monthly means as bold lines. The authors apologize for any inconvenience these mistakes may have caused the readers. The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.