I would like to thank the authors for submitting the revised version of the manuscript and for addressing the concerns raised by the reviewers.

Before accepting the paper for publication, however, I would like to ask the authors to address the points below.

1) There are still typos and errors that need to be addressed throughout the manuscript. I am reporting below a list of what I was able to find but I strongly encourage the authors to check again the manuscript before the final submission.

- Line 25. Add a comma after Here
- Line 41 an should be 'a'
- the last sentence of the abstract mentions runoff that 'contributed directly to global sea-level rise'. How are the authors supporting this statement ?
- Line 51 'It is those that determine' . Please, rephrase
- Line 67 add a reference at the end of the sentence
Line 68 'significant'. I would rather the authors to use this concerning statistical significance.
- Line 111. Sentence ending with 'melt rates' would benefit of a reference
- Line 117. I find the expression 'implying ...' speculative
- Line 143. the references should be moved at the end of the sentence
- Line 189. It is not clear how the 5 km MODIS data were averaged at 100 m.
- Line 215 107 --> 7 should be superscript
- Line 288. an albedo of 0.05 seems unrealistically low and of the same order of magnitude of the MODIS error. Can the authors please add some comments on this ?
- Line 293. I dont undersrtand how this sentence fits into the context of the paper.
- Line 297. energyinput --> energy input
- Line 361. 'a couple of' is too colloquial. Please rephrase

Moreover, the reply to reviewers is full of errors. The authors use the plural for verbs when the subject is singular. There are also several typos which highlight the poor care of the authors in checking their response before submission. I cordially invite the authors to correct those errors and pay more attention in the future about this detail. In this regard, if possible, the authors should submit a point-by-point reply to reviewers comments. This would help to understand how they addressed their comments.

I would encourage the authors to add the figure showing the components of the energy balance for KAN_L and KAN_U, as originally suggested by Reviewer # 1.

The plot in Fig. 3 stretches below the x-axis. Please correct the plot.

Lastly, I encourage the authors to, please, show how they addressed the points above in their reply to this comment.