Dear Charles, Dear co-Authors,

Thanks for having improved your manuscript following the reviewer's suggestions.
Your responses to the reviewer's remarks are convincing and the focus of your paper is now clearly claimed in the title. Therefore, I am happy to accept your paper for publication after some minor revisions.

Knowing that your manuscript is limited to the study of only 2 (interesting) events and that an extension of the studied period (requested by reviewer #2) is not possible (because published in another paper), I suggest to switch the type of this paper to a "brief communication" as also suggested by reviewer #2. The aim of the “Brief communication” is notably to “disseminate information and data on topical events of significant scientific and/or social interest within the scope of the journal.”.

The “Brief communications” type is described here:
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/about/manuscript_types.html
The limitations (max 4 pages, 20 references, …) are just suggestions that can be overpassed as it is the case in most of the brief communications published in TC.

I think that providing Section 2.2 + Fig 3 in Supplementary Material, shortening a bit the abstract (~200 words), the Into and Section 4 should be enough to be in the “Brief communications” canvas.

I am waiting a revised version in the “Brief communications” type before final acceptance for publication.

Best regards,
Xavier

Thanks for this new version.
This perfectly fits to the "Brief communication" type.