Dear authors,

I have now received the review of your revised version and reviewed the manuscript by myself. Based on this review and my own judgement I am happy to accept the manuscript after the following minor issues are addressed:

In general: The English needs still improvement and should be carefully proofread by a native speaker.

L22: You do not show that this glacier is a “typical” glacier. Write “of a medium sized valley glacier” or similar.

L26ff: The comparisons of your results with other studies seems to be a bit arbitrary to me as already mentioned in my access review. It is specifically unclear why you specifically highlight Mendenhall Glacier.

L32f: Not the best woring.

L43f: Be aware that not all glaciers contribute to sea-level rise. Especially, the meltwater from glaciers draining into endorheric basins on the TP contribute rather to the rise of the lake levels (e.g. Neckel et al. 2014).

L51f: Avoid citing too many studies in a row. Be more specific regarding the cited studies. Mention e.g. the geographical region.

L53: “found to be diverse”. A bit vague. Be more precise.

L75-78: These statements are too general. The glaciers are not only retreating because of increases of temperatures and carbon deposition. Precipitation, the timing of the monsoon, radiation play also an important role. Especially regarding glacier changes, there are also valid studies outside the ITP group which should be considered in addition or instead.

L86-92: This is a description of the methodology and should be merged with the methods section.

L123f: Repetition of “Meanwhile.

L126: Do not write “These results will be presented in another article”. Why don’t you present here? Write rather “is subject to future work” or similar.

L. 189: This sentence should be moved to the description of the study area.

L190: Write first the results of the measurements. The high concentration support then the statement that the high dust concentration is probably due to deserted surroundings and the frequent dust storms.

L200: “Alaskan glaciers”. This is the place to be more specific not in the abstract.

L216: “glacierised”

L218ff: Here and elsewhere: Mention first your results and put them then into the context of other studies.

L324-329: Sentence too long and hard to understand. Cut in pieces and improve wording.


332: You have never shown that this glacier is “typical”. Rewrite.

L342: “for the first time”. Unclear what you have done for the first time from this sentence.

Conclusions:
The conclusions are slightly too long and reads partly like a discussion. Draw the main conclusions of your own study. Avoid referencing to other studies, if not absolutely necessary.


Reviewers comments:


Line 337 on: "indicating that mineral dust transported from adjacent arid regions made important contributions to DOC of the studied glacierized regions except autochthonous or in situ biological activities". This sentence is unclear, and needs rewriting, I'd suggest as follows or similar:

"indicating that mineral dust transported from adjacent arid regions likely made important contributions to DOC of the studied glacierized regions, although contributions from autochthonous and heterotrophic microbial activity cannot be ruled out"

Line 32-34 Similarly, the related text in the abstract is rather clunky as follows and could be rewritten similar to above, although the meaning is clear "Based on this finding and the significant relationship between DOC and Ca2+ 33 , the main source of DOC might be desert mineral dust. Meanwhile, autotrophic or 34 heterotrophic biological activities and autochthonous carbon could also contribute to glacier DOC".

Line 223 - unclear "-4.8-11.4oC, rewrite as -4.8 to 11.4

Line 238 - should be 'supraglacial', rather than 'supraglacier'

Please provide a point to point reply and provide the manuscript where you highlight the changes made (e.g. using the “track changes” mode). As mentioned above, the paper is acceptable once these comments are sufficiently adressed.

Best regards,

Tobias – Editor TC

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for your addtional improvements. I am happy to accept the manuscript now as is.

Thank you for your contribution to TC.

Best regards,

Tobias Bolch