Dear Authors,

Thanks for the thorough revision of your paper and for taking into account or answering to the reviewer’s comments. I still a few, generally minor, comments on the paper that you will find marked in yellow in the copy-annotated version of the manuscript that I uploaded in the review system.

To ensure a prompt and easy handling of your revised paper, could you upload a (i) a rebuttal letter and (ii) a track-changed version of the paper only showing the changes that will be done in this round of corrections?

I am not a native speaker and my English is not really good. However, I have the feeling that you could still improve the readability of the paper quite significantly.

Comment on the Supplement (not uploaded):
L82. “individual” -> “separately” (I think)

Best regards,

Etienne Berthier

Dear Authors,

Thanks for the revision of your paper and for taking into account or answering to my last round of comments. I have the pleasure to accept you manuscript for publication in The Cryosphere.

Before uploading the final version of the manuscript in the editorial system, make sure you take into account the suggestions below:
L810. Schlegel et al., 2016 should appear in the reference list.
L891. "We very grateful to the editor". "are" missing
L1121. "as a function retracking threshold". "of the" missing
L1158. mention in the legend of this figure that the time series compare the result of two retrackers (as you explain well in the legend of Figure 5 for example).

Thanks for choosing our journal to publish your work.

Best regards,