I am pleased to see significant improvements in the revised manuscript. I now received comments from one reviewer. This reviewer and I think that the manuscript still has some technical issues but it overall meets the criteria of The Cryosphere, so it can be publishable after adequate minor revision by the editor.

Please carefully address all points brought by the reviewer, and provide a response letter and a highlighted manuscript in the next submission. In addition to reviewer's comments, I would draw your attention to figures:

Figure 1: Label white, black and red rectangles as “Fig. 2”, “Fig. 5” and “Fig. 6” so that the figure is more self-explanatory.

Figure 3:
- The caption is confusing. The first sentence says elevations and elevation anomalies but three panels show these two and hydraulic potential anomaly. Is it better to say “Ice-surface elevations and subglacial hydraulic potential around the three subglacial lakes KT1, KT2, and KT3 overlaid on the MOA image.”?

- Both (b) and (c) show local anomalies or relative values. It’s easier to read if both are said “XXX anomaly” (elevation anomaly and hydraulic potential anomaly).

- “The red square indicates the location of the hydro-potential lows and the white square indicates the predicted outlets”?

Figure 4: the transparent color shows one standard deviation of elevation measurements on the stationary ice adjacent to teach lake. It’s a fact. I think that the authors judge that one standard deviation is a good measure of uncertainty but it is interpretation. Please separate the explanation to the fact indicated in the figure and its interpretation.

Figure 5: At the end of panel a’s caption, add “See Fig. 1 for the lake K8’s location” or such.

Figure 6:
- Typo. 3 retangles should be “rectangles”.
- No gray rectangle (the last sentence in the caption).

Dear authors,

Thanks for submitting the revised manuscript promptly after the review. You addressed all points brought by the reviewer adequately, so I am happy to accept this manuscript with one technical correction on the scientific point #2 (tests on time-window lengths). Your response in the letter is fine but the manuscript does not show this point adequately. Please add several sentences in Section 2.2 to reflect your replies to the manuscript. Because your response in the letter is valid, I judge that this revision is a technical correction.

Thanks for submitting your work to TC/TCD.

Kenny Matsuoka
TC/TCD editor